Language Learning and Study Abroad: A Critical Reading of Research

Language Learning and Study Abroad A Critical Reading of Research Celeste Kinginger Language Learning and Study Abroa...

Author: Celeste Kinginger

93 downloads 1645 Views 842KB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD

Language Learning and Study Abroad A Critical Reading of Research

Celeste Kinginger

Language Learning and Study Abroad

This page intentionally left blank

Language Learning and Study Abroad A Critical Reading of Research Celeste Kinginger The Pennsylvania State University

© Celeste Kinginger 2009 All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this publication may be made without written permission. No portion of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted save with written permission or in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licence permitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, Saffron House, 6-10 Kirby Street, London EC1N 8TS. Any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages. The author has asserted her right to be identified as the author of this work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. First published 2009 by PALGRAVE MACMILLAN Palgrave Macmillan in the UK is an imprint of Macmillan Publishers Limited, registered in England, company number 785998, of Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS. Palgrave Macmillan in the US is a division of St Martin’s Press LLC, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010. Palgrave Macmillan is the global academic imprint of the above companies and has companies and representatives throughout the world. Palgrave® and Macmillan® are registered trademarks in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe and other countries. ISBN-13: 978–0–230–54924–1 hardback This book is printed on paper suitable for recycling and made from fully managed and sustained forest sources. Logging, pulping and manufacturing processes are expected to conform to the environmental regulations of the country of origin. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Kinginger, Celeste, 1959– Language learning and study abroad : a critical reading of research / Celeste Kinginger. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978–0–230–54924–1 (alk. paper) 1. Second language acquisition. 2. Language and languages— Study and teaching—Foreign speakers. 3. Foreign study. 4. Intercultural communication. I. Title. P118.2.K53 2009 418.0071—dc22 2009013641 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 09 Printed and bound in Great Britain by CPI Antony Rowe, Chippenham and Eastbourne

To Jon and Sam


Contents

List of Tables

viii

Acknowledgments

ix

1 Situating Language Learning in Study Abroad

1

2 Measuring Language Acquisition

29

3 Domains of Communicative Competence

69

4 Communicative Settings for Language Learning Abroad

114

5 Language Socialization and Identity

154

6 Interpreting Research on Language Learning in Study Abroad

205

Notes

224

References

225

Name Index

242

Subject Index

246

vii

List of Tables 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 4.1

Assessment of proficiency development Assessment of fluency development Assessment of listening comprehension Assessment of reading and writing Assessment of grammatical competence Research on speech acts Studies of discourse competence Studies of sociolinguistic competence Research on communicative settings for language learning 5.1 Research on language socialization and identity

viii

42 50 59 62 73 84 92 103 116 157

Acknowledgments I would like to thank my colleagues and students in the Department of Applied Linguistics, the Department of French and Francophone Studies, and the Center for Language Acquisition at the Pennsylvania State University for their support of my research and for many inspiring conversations about language learning. I am indebted to David Block and to Aneta Pavlenko for their invaluable comments on the manuscript. My thanks also go to Jill Lake, Priyanka Pathak, and Melanie Blair at Palgrave/Macmillan for taking on this project and seeing it to completion with expertise and humane professionalism. The preparation of this book was partially supported by a grant of sabbatical leave from the College of Liberal Arts at the Pennsylvania State University and by a grant from the US Department of Education (CFDA 84.229, P229A020010) to the Center for Advanced Language Proficiency Education and Research (CALPER) at the Pennsylvania State University. However, the contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the Department of Education and one should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government.

ix


1 Situating Language Learning in Study Abroad

Preamble In his 1986 autobiographical novel L’étudiant étranger (The Foreign Student), the French journalist and cineaste Philippe Labro recreates and embellishes his college study abroad experience. During the mid-1950s the novel’s 18-year-old protagonist leaves France for a year to become an exchange student in the United States. His destination is a rural college for ‘gentlemen’ located in central Virginia where the White population clings both to antebellum customs of discreet propriety and to its legacy of racial prejudice and segregation. Alternately terrified and thrilled to the core, the young man is plunged into an alternative universe where everything seems new to him, from language, to modes of social organization, to colors of the natural landscape. Eager to blend in, he decides that the best way to learn will be to participate as actively as possible while pretending to have understood not only words, but also gestures, clothing, grooming, flavors, and quotidian pursuits. He shortly discovers that the meanings of linguistic signs are richly intertwined with social convention, sensual experience, and implicit ideologies of gender and race. He gradually discovers, for example, that the word date, as a verb, corresponds to an elaborate, carefully scripted ritual involving drive-in movies and fraternity parties, accessible only to those who own or can borrow a car. In learning to use this word, Labro’s autobiographical ‘I’ profits by a legitimate place in the local world of dating, as well as the desire for this participation. He discovers not only the word’s grammatical functions but also some scripts for the corresponding activity and the implications of variation from those scripts, including the consequences of rule violation, and script variants like blind date and steady date. 1

2


Understanding the ritual itself is not enough, however: he must also grasp such subtleties as the paradox of 1950s’ moral codes according to which one’s date (the noun) should be a good girl: maximally enticing but virtuously abstemious, tantalizing but inaccessible. Over time, the meaning of such a word might develop multi-sensory levels, linked not only to knowledge of etiquette and proper dress but also to the flavor of certain foods, such as popcorn, hamburgers, or Pabst Blue Ribbon beer, and to a broad array of ‘prior texts’ (Becker 1988), including the portrayal of dating and romance in the pop music of the 1950s (e.g., Marty Robbins’ 1957 ‘A White Sport Coat and a Pink Carnation’ or Danny and the Juniors’ 1955 ‘At the Hop’). In the end, the word might assume a rich emotional resonance associated with specific events in the author’s memory (Kramsch 2006a). Along the way, the foreign student often violates codes whose very existence he does not suspect. At first, these infractions are relatively minor, as when he is brought before a peer disciplinary council (The Assimilation Committee), suspected of failing to smile with adequate sincerity when greeting strangers on campus. Later, his choices lead him far from his initial innocence, and toward shocking realizations of the economic and racial inequities characterizing the American south prior to the civil rights movement. A generation after Labro, as a bookish 19-year-old college student born in central Virginia, I went to France, joining the many American participants in the then traditional Junior Year Abroad. I would leave behind the leafy oasis of Antioch College, having cultivated a sincere smile and an appropriately radical political outlook, and would abandon routine walking meditations on existentialism in the company of my professors. Having dutifully chanted the dialogues in the first-year textbook, put on plays more ridiculous than sublime in high school French class, then crept one-by-one through the pages of Camus’ L’Etranger, leaning heavily on my bilingual dictionary, my plan was to learn French. Apart from knowing that this effort would involve reading more books and talking, I had precious few ideas about how this plan would work. I didn’t know at the time that learning another language would involve learning how to live otherwise: how to dress, how to eat, walk, gesture, and navigate within institutions. Like Labro, I entered the scenes of my first year in France with only vague awareness of my own preconceptions, and I look back on that year as a time not only of considerable malaise but also of continual discovery. Madame Lunes, proprietress of the small family farm where I satisfied Antioch’s cooperative work assignment, taught me to

Situating Language Learning in Study Abroad 3

manufacture goat cheese, to choose the right market piglet, to perfect a vinaigrette, to endure driving uninhibited by the speed limit in a rattling Deux Chevaux, and above all, to talk about family, love, food, religion, and politics. Later on, mainly by way of shared interest in chamber music performance, I acquired friends at school who oversaw my apprenticeship in youth culture and language, patiently shepherding me through the argot-laden pages of their comic books and correcting my pompous, misplaced, or archaic vocabulary. In the classroom, I encountered literary language in a context where the rules for interaction were clearly very different from those in force at Antioch. On the street, in the news, and in diverse conversational settings, I began to recognize that despite lingering echoes of May 1968, history’s yield of bigotry, intolerance, and social inequity was as much in evidence in Montpellier as it had ever been in Virginia. My first study abroad experience, unlike that of Labro’s protagonist, took place under the aegis and direct guidance of my college and its programs: work/study, an agreement with the university in Montpellier, and finally the Paris Seminar run by my beloved late professor, Anna Otten, and intended to acquaint Antioch students personally with Parisian writers and artists such as Roland Barthes, Alain RobbeGrillet, Eugene Ionesco, Nathlie Sarraute, and Fernando Botero. The program appears in retrospect to have been extremely well designed for my purpose. I returned to my studies in the United States with communicative resources in French to match a wide variety of circumstances, because my French-mediated experiences had extended from herding goats and shoveling manure to discussing the viability of poststructuralist approaches to literary analysis. Although attaining this competence had required striking out on my own most of the time, as a member of the cohort from my college, I had also interacted continuously with other Americans and had certainly noticed that my fellow Antioch students, a motley crew of poets, scientists, activists, and magicians, would have been extremely difficult to classify under any rubric, including ‘language learner.’ L’étudiant étranger is a work of fiction based – perhaps loosely – on Labro’s life experiences as a young Frenchman in Virginia, shaped by its narrator’s perspective of time, his mature wisdom, experience, and aesthetic goals. My own reflections on study abroad as a young Virginian in France are similarly crafted by the benefit of hindsight and current intent. Neither of these narratives are works of second-language research, yet at the beginning of a book about language learning in study abroad, it is well to be reminded that language learning cannot

4


be easily or unproblematically extracted from the whole of lived experience. Autobiographical accounts, literary or otherwise, serve as a vivid reminder that language learners are unique people, ‘not just communicators and problem solvers, but whole persons with hearts, bodies, and minds, with memories, fantasies, loyalties, identities’ (Kramsch 2006b: 251). In reading these accounts and recalling personal experience, we remember that language learning is tied to concrete historical and sociocultural settings and the vast multiplicity of semiotic resources within them (Lantolf and Pavlenko 2001). Language learning is about lexical, grammatical, phonological, or pragmatic forms, to be sure, but it is also about flavors and colors, sights and sounds, in short, embodied experience of the world (van Lier 2008).

Introduction This book outlines the current state-of-the-art in research on language learning abroad, acquainting readers with the variety of approaches in the contemporary literature through scrutiny of the advantages and drawbacks of each. An enhanced awareness of the relationship between study abroad and language learning is much to be desired, for teachers, program designers, researchers, policy makers, parents, and students. Language-teaching professional folklore frames the sojourn abroad as the highlight of academic careers, a time when students emerge from classroom decorum and observe that a foreign language need not always be interpreted as a bloodless academic object, severed from its cultural origin and habitat (Lantolf 2007). Often basing their evaluation on their own transformative experiences, teachers expect students abroad to discover language as a medium of expressive delight and a key to world of difference. However, even if study abroad is a key feature of many language programs, dispassionate evaluation of its effects remains a rare practice. Few programs make the effort to integrate the sojourn abroad into their curriculum (Coleman 1998; Wilkinson 2005). Often, study abroad is taken not only as a learning environment inherently superior to the classroom but also as an excuse not to teach languages (Schneider 2001). From the perspective of pedagogy, then, a clearer understanding of how study abroad functions in the development of students’ language ability might assist in developing reasoned approaches to program design. Among researchers interested in language learning, particularly in academic settings, study abroad represents a compelling but extremely thorny series of questions. A sojourn abroad is normally considered to


be a crucial step in the development of ability to use a language in a range of communicative settings. The design of research on language learning abroad, however, confronts the investigator with a bewildering array of variable features, from the identities, motives, or desires of the learner to the range of chance or deliberate encounters presenting opportunities to learn. Students abroad potentially observe, participate, and communicate in classrooms, homes, personal relationships, service learning, or commercial interactions. Study abroad programs have varying objectives, academic foci, and expectations for student activities. Students abroad may be received with warmth, enthusiasm, and patient assistance, or they may find their presence noted with indifference or even with hostility. They may or may not position themselves wholly or in part as language learners. Nevertheless, researchers in applied linguistics and language education have demonstrated considerable interest in study abroad, especially in the years following the publication of Freed’s landmark edited volume, Second Language Acquisition in a Study Abroad Context (1995a). Numerous projects have explored the language-related outcomes well as the qualities of student experience abroad. The range of approaches characterizing this sub-field of applied linguistics now warrants critical review, to inspire creativity and ensure caution in future research. For policy makers and the public, questions about study abroad often have to do with justifying investment of time and financial resources. Politicians want to know how the common good is served through support of students’ sojourns in other countries, and parents want to know what is gained and what is lost when their children study abroad. In the United States, for example, opinions may be formed not only by the findings of research, but also by a ‘dominant’ policy discourse (Gore 2005) according to which education of true quality can only be obtained at home, or by sensationalist reports of students whose time abroad is spent in rigorous avoidance of study while they bar hop and practice extreme sports with other Americans (Feinberg 2002). It is challenging to sort through the conflicting messages of detractors and supporters of study abroad, and to arrive at a reasonably clear conclusion. In many policy documents or in advertising, meanwhile, study abroad is portrayed as offering numerous benefits, with language learning typically playing a relatively minor part. Students who go abroad, it is claimed, develop greater personal maturity, first-hand knowledge of other lands and peoples, commitment to civic engagement, and intercultural awareness fostering mutual understanding among

6


nations. Although language is downplayed or made transparent in these documents, as if it were an ancillary skill incidental to other goals, experts on international education such as Falk and Kanach (2002) argue convincingly that foreign language competence is a key prerequisite for intercultural communicative competence and international understanding. It follows from this argument that understanding how languages are learned in study abroad will offer considerable guidance in assessing the general worth of these educational experiences. Much depends, as well, on whether language is understood only as a practical skill or more broadly as social practice and ‘a personal stake which extends one’s identity’ (Murphy-Lejeune 2002: 104). This book explores a variety of research traditions in the research on language learning abroad, including measurement of proficiency, investigation of language acquisition, ethnographic inquiry, and approaches to identity and language socialization. Such a project can aspire to inclusiveness, but not to exhaustiveness. Major exemplars of prominent approaches to research are examined, but I cannot claim to discuss each and every relevant study. Along the way, nonetheless, the reader will discover an emerging research-derived knowledge base useful for the design and assessment of study abroad programs and for projects aiming to promote meaningful student experiences. The reading supplied here is ‘critical’ in the classic scholarly sense. That is, it attempts to move beyond the face value of knowledge presentation and toward recognition of the historical and ideological contexts shaping research agendas and knowledge representation, with the goal of deriving an informed synthesis addressing several key concerns of educators, policy makers, participants, and researchers: What are the contributions of study abroad to language learning? What can educators do to assist sojourners abroad in reaching their language-related goals? What capabilities are necessary, in the contemporary world, to foster successful, satisfying, and educationally relevant student sojourns abroad? Which aspects of language learning abroad have been adequately studied, and which remain insufficiently explored? This chapter includes three sections. The first sets the stage for the project represented in this book, defining study abroad within the larger context of international education and student mobility, and contrasting it with the related phenomena of migration, on the one hand, and tourism, on the other. The second briefly explores policy issues and demographic facts about international education in the United States, Europe, and Japan, whose student citizens participate in study programs abroad in considerable numbers. This discussion shows that even if a


uniform baseline definition of study abroad were to be achieved, the educational meaning of this pursuit, and the research accompanying it, can nevertheless vary considerably from one geopolitical or national context to the next. Finally, the chapter turns to the recent history of second-language research shaping scholars’ agendas in study abroad contexts and to an overview of the book.

Study abroad, academic migration, and tourism If scholars have been mobile throughout the history of scholarship, in the contemporary era of social and economic globalization, study abroad is becoming ever more difficult to apprehend in its entirety. Since the 1950s in particular, cross-border education has expanded in every form. Observers witness annual increases and innovations in program mobility, and record numbers of students enrolled in study abroad programs each year. Over the past three decades, there has a been fourfold increase in the number of students enrolled outside their country of citizenship; from 0.61 million worldwide in 1975 to 2.73 million in 2005 (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 2007). In its putative benefits for language expertise and intercultural awareness, student mobility has become a priority of policy makers throughout the world. More students are going abroad for a wider range of purposes, and within a broader selection of programs, than ever before. For James Coleman (2006), the first, and somewhat disarming, challenge in defining study abroad is to discern how it is named. Coleman discovered many nomenclatures circulating in the published literature, including: ‘study abroad,’ ‘student mobility,’ ‘residence abroad,’ ‘in-country study,’ ‘overseas language immersion,’ ‘séjour à l’étranger,’ ‘estancia al extranjero,’ ‘auslandsaufenthalt,’ and ‘academic migration.’ Clearly, each of these terms refers in some way to education taking place outside a given student’s home country or region, but each also limits or expands this phenomenon in a specific manner. ‘Residence abroad,’ for example, highlights the value of lived experience in a way that ‘in-country study’ does not, and a ‘séjour à l’étranger’ seems less consequential, both for individuals and for societies, than ‘academic migration.’ Thus when first we encounter it, this plethora of terms suggests real differences not only in ways of organizing study abroad, but also in the concepts underlying this organization. Meanwhile, Block (2007a) noted that the literature on language learning in study abroad over-represents the experiences of students from the

8


United States and to a lesser extent, Europe and Japan, excluding many conceivable combinations of sending and receiving countries. While we learn a great deal about how US students fare in Europe or Latin America, and we read about the learning trajectories of European students during their year abroad, this literature appears to exclude, for example, African students in Europe, Asian students in Australia, or Latin American students in the United States. An initial step, then, is to define precisely what we mean by study abroad, and to situate this activity and the focus of the book with respect to the related phenomena of migration, on one hand, and tourism, on the other. A look at the larger economic and demographic picture serves at once to clarify how study abroad functions in the broader context of international education worldwide, and to shed some light on the imbalanced representation in research noted by Block. In a publication treating Internationalization and Trade in Higher Education (2004), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development1 (OECD) presented statistics on the nature and growth of ‘cross-border education’ as one issue within the wider development of educational internationalization. Cross-border education includes the mobility of people (students and teachers) as well as the mobility of educational programs and institutions. At the level of policy, the report distinguished four national approaches to cross-border education: • A mutual understanding approach affording intellectual and cultural enrichment and stimulus to academic programs and research. Such an approach is exemplified by the European Union’s ERASMUS program funding over a million student exchanges from 1987 to the present. • A revenue-generating approach promoting the services of a country’s higher education system to fee-paying students abroad in an effort to control a large share of the market. This approach has been adopted in Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom, which all have international agencies for the promotion of national interests in the educational marketplace. • A skilled migration approach, such as the report attributes to Germany, aiming to attract highly skilled students who may remain in the host country after their studies, thus countering the economic effects of an ageing society and stimulating academic life and research. • A capacity-building approach within which countries encourage their domestic students to study abroad in order to build or improve the quality of their home educational provisions upon their return.


Countries emphasizing this approach include those where demand for higher education outweighs supply, such as Sri Lanka or Cyprus. The four approaches are not to be understood as mutually exclusive, but rather to exist and to complement one another in various combinations. Identifying these approaches provides a vocabulary with which the report may then characterize both national and regional policies themselves and their occasionally unintended effects. For example, when students from a developing country promoting capacity building take up the opportunities provided in a developed country with a skilled migration approach to recruiting foreign talent, the result, known as brain drain, has more far-reaching consequences than does mere study abroad – it is in fact temporary or permanent migration. Scrutiny of the 2004 OECD report reveals global economic inequities shaping the exigencies of student mobility and the ambitions of student border crossers. For many of the Latin American, African, and Asian students whose experience appears to be excluded from the study abroad literature, cross-border education is driven less by a mutual understanding approach than by economic striving or by a dearth of opportunity for higher education at home. It is not necessarily undertaken in the context of a home institution’s design for academic enrichment but is, potentially at least, a long-term change of locale and life horizons for individual students and for whole populations of skilled professionals. This reality is reflected in the documented purpose and duration of student sojourns abroad by region of origin. Student mobility, rather than institutional mobility, represents the largest share of crossborder education as a worldwide phenomenon. Student mobility further divides into three categories: (1) full study abroad for a foreign degree or qualification; (2) study as part of an academic partnership within a home degree or a joint degree involving institutions at home and abroad; and (3) exchange programs. For students from the Asia-Pacific region, for example, the main modality of cross-border education is the acquisition of a full degree on a fee-paying basis. That is, these students often go abroad for periods of multiple years, earning degrees recognized and valued by their host countries; these degrees may either be imported back to the home country as part of capacity building or they may qualify the student to join the host country’s workforce. In Western Europe, by contrast, only 2 percent of tertiary level students were enrolled in foreign degree programs, and these students came from

10


countries such as Cyprus or Luxembourg whose educational system did not offer significant opportunity for study at the post-secondary level. The typical form of student mobility in Europe, Canada, and Mexico is a short-term program not exceeding one year in duration. In the United States, 91 percent of study abroad participants were enrolled in programs of a semester’s duration or less at the time the report was issued. In summarizing general trends in student mobility, the report emphasizes overall growth, the attraction of foreign students to OECD countries, and the particular lure of English. By 2004, international student mobility had doubled in the previous 20 years, and the OECD countries hosted the majority of the world’s foreign students (85 percent). Further, of these internationally mobile students in OECD countries, 57 percent were from outside the OECD area. Approximately half of these students were attracted to study in one of the English-speaking countries of the OECD, namely the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and the United States. The number of foreign students in Australia had tripled since 1990 and multiplied more than thirteen-fold since 1980. In the United Kingdom, there were three times as many foreign students as there were in 1990, and four times as many as in 1980. In the United States, there had been over half a million new enrollments of foreign students each year since 1999 (Institute for International Education 2007). Thus, while all forms of student mobility are available in principle to all students, in practice the meaning of ‘study abroad’ varies considerably depending on student origin, destination, and ultimate goal. Students from outside the OECD usually enroll in full study abroad for a foreign degree, often in English-speaking countries. For many of these students, study abroad is migration related, particularly in destinations like the United States, where generous scholarship support at the graduate level combines with a capacity-building approach in technical fields. The OECD report of 2004 cited many examples of countries such as Sri Lanka and the Philippines, which were ‘net exporters of skilled labor,’ or of the 50 percent of Chinese and Indian doctoral students in the United States in 2000 who intended to stay upon completion of their studies (OECD 2004: 150). Thus, in the literature on language learning in study abroad, the limited representation of these students’ experience may be due to blurred boundaries between education and other, longer-term activities, and between study abroad and migration. Documentation of these students’ language-learning processes does exist in many forms within the broader literature on second-language acquisition (SLA) and the socialization of international students, but it is not necessarily identified as related primarily to study abroad alone.


The economic perspective represented in the OECD report helps to clarify why the literature on language learning in study abroad primarily represents the experiences of students from Europe, Japan, or Englishspeaking countries such as the United States, Canada, and Australia. These students enjoy relative high levels of economic privilege conveying the right to imagine a geographically stable future. While earning home-based degrees and envisaging mobility as a matter of personal or professional choice, these students may pursue intellectual growth, cultural enrichment, international awareness, and language learning through various forms of study abroad. The possibility of longer-term migration, while not excluded, is rarely the focus of such sojourns. It is, after all, within the context of deliberately temporary sojourns away from home that study abroad becomes a salient phenomenon in and of itself. Typically, then, when these students go abroad in the course of their studies they do so within short-term programs of a year or less, often as part of a local, home-based degree or qualification program. The definition of study abroad that is adopted in this book, therefore, is as follows: a temporary sojourn of pre-defined duration, undertaken for educational purposes. A study abroad experience may fulfill degree requirements or may provide enrichment within a home-based degree program, normally at the post-secondary level. Study abroad, according to this definition, also includes the cases of individuals who go to another country or region temporarily and for educational reasons, often involving language learning. This definition includes the typical experiences of European exchange students, those of Asian students who go abroad in order to learn English, and those of students from the United States, Australia, or Canada who go abroad for a variety of educational purposes, including language learning. This definition helps to situate the field under consideration and to separate it from the broader phenomenon of more explicitly migration-related student mobility. Without excluding students of any national origin, it also demonstrates that language-acquisition research on study abroad tends to focus on the largest populations of students who have recently enjoyed the luxury of sampling foreign realities within a purely educational framework. Study abroad, as defined here, exists on a continuum describing the student’s intended degree of resettling and integration into the host country. On one end of the spectrum lies migration, and on the other, tourism, including opportunities for short-term ‘vacation study abroad’ in which travel is more closely associated with leisure and entertainment than with effort and focused learning. Distinctions are blurred at

12


both ends, however. In the case of tourism, for example, much depends upon the intentions of individual students. Feinberg (2002) describes cases where short-term study abroad, although situated within an educational framework, was experienced by American students as opportunity for leisure activities such as bungee jumping and recreational drinking, enhanced by exotic backdrops. As English exerts increasing dominance worldwide, Phipps (2006), by contrast, describes the earnest endeavors of Anglophone tourist language learners, arguing for a revised vision of linguistic tourism as a mainstay of intercultural dialogue. In relation to language learning in study abroad, tourism is a state of mind influenced not only by individual proclivities but also by the value societies assign to foreign language competence as a desired outcome of travel. In his critique of the study abroad literature on language learning, Block (2007a) observes a disproportionate emphasis on the experiences of American students. While researchers do examine outcomes and qualities of study abroad by European and Asian students, in the primary English-language research databases the majority of citations referring directly to language learning and study abroad concern students from the United States. A closer look reveals that the foci adopted by researchers from various regions are shaped in part by sociopolitical history and education policy influencing the societal roles ascribed to language and language learning. For American researchers the salience of study abroad is enhanced not only by the life-transforming nature of travel from a geographically isolated country, but also by the part it may play in furthering language acquisition at relatively early stages. European research often investigates issues of intercultural awareness and adaptation for more advanced learners whose border crossing is a routine practice. Researchers examining the experiences of Japanese students abroad are primarily concerned with the acquisition of English for international communication or for academic success at home. The brief historical overviews of related language education policy and practice below illustrate the diversity of purpose represented within research on language learning abroad in the United States, Europe, and Japan.

The United States In the United States, ‘the public and policy makers have traditionally been more inward than outward-looking’ (OECD 2004: 43), and international education is not central to national educational debate. Similarly, language teaching is a marginalized pursuit that has never been in the mainstream of American education (Bernhardt 1998).


Pavlenko (2002a) took a historiographic approach to the emergence of monolingualism in English as a symbol of national unity and identity. In the 18th and early 19th century, the United States was robustly multilingual, with educational policy and practice in support of linguistic diversity, and numerous immigrant groups maintaining their native languages for generations. However, an ideological shift took place during the Great Migration period of 1880–1924, when some 24 million immigrants arrived in the United States. This influx of immigrants from southern and eastern Europe aroused fears of a threat to national unity. In the wake of World War One, these fears combined with anti-German ‘hysteria and xenophobia’ (2002a: 174) to yield a climate conducive to linguistic intolerance. A new rhetoric emerged equating English proficiency with true citizenship, supported by discourses framing English as a language of high ethical and intellectual value. Multilingualism was linked to cognitive deficit, lack of patriotism, and low moral standards. The post-war period witnessed the rise of the Americanization movement, with efforts to assimilate immigrant adults and children through English and civics instruction, policies imposing English as the official language of certain states, and the restriction of foreign language instruction. Efforts were underway to protect the ‘ideological purity’ (2002a: 182) of foreign language classes by assigning them to American-born teachers, withdrawing them from elementary schools, and de-emphasizing interactive skills in favor of reading. In sum, this period gave birth to the pervasive double standard in present-day American ideologies of multilingualism: while middleclass children may be encouraged to acquire some, usually limited, proficiency in French, Spanish, or German, their immigrant peers are discouraged from maintaining their native languages and told to focus on English only. Accordingly, in the overall contemporary picture, internationalization remains marginal on many campuses and is seen as more related to the presence of foreign students and scholars than to internationalizing teaching and learning for American students. At the federal level, efforts at internationalization in the 20th century have typically been dominated by concerns about national security and economic competition. The Cold War was the impetus for the 1958 National Defense Education Act (NDEA), prompted by the Soviet launching of Sputnik and the perceived threat of other nations’ scientific and educational prominence. The NDEA led to considerable investment in developing language and area studies expertise, but did not lead to a sustained push toward internationalization. The Department of Education’s 1965 Title VI program

14


represented another key initiative, providing grants to institutions for the furthering of language competence and internationalization. The late 1970s and 1980s saw generalized acknowledgment of another threat, this time economic in nature, as President Jimmy Carter’s Commission on Foreign Language issued its report, Strength Through Wisdom (1979). The report linked language ability with global competition, insisting that language instruction be reformed to promote functional abilities. The Bush administration came to power with an agenda for education centered on the reform of elementary and secondary level instruction. In the years following the tragedy of September 11, 2001, however, language education has come into the limelight once again as a response to a threat. In 1991 the Department of Defense had created the National Security Education Program to support the efforts of students learning less-commonly taught languages deemed critical to the armed forces. Current efforts at the federal level include expanding the number of languages offered to include those heretofore less-commonly taught, to devise pathways toward advanced level proficiency, and to increase the number of American students who study abroad. In 2005, the Commission on the Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Fellowship Program recommended sending at least one million American undergraduate students abroad each year. In this report, widespread participation in study abroad is described as the next major step in the evolution of US higher education, comparable to the establishment of land grant universities in the latter half of the 19th century, or to the Serviceman’s Readjustment Act of 1944 providing financial assistance to veterans pursuing higher education and thereby consolidating the postwar middle class. The report emphasizes the importance of global skill for competitiveness and national security, noting that ‘study abroad is one of the major means of producing foreign language speakers and enhancing foreign language learning’ (p. vi). Enthusiasm for this proposal was such that 2006 was proclaimed the Year of Study Abroad by unanimous Senate Resolution. Even without the Abraham Lincoln Fellowship Program, study abroad participation by American students is on the rise, although its nature is changing. According to the Institute for International Education’s (IIE’s) 2007 Open Doors Report, the most recent available statistics show that the number of US students studying abroad has increased by more than 150 percent over the past decade. In the academic year 2005– 2006, 223,534 American students went abroad on academic programs, an increase of 8.5 percent over the previous year. Meanwhile, however, the Junior Year Abroad, involving foreign language majors, has


passed out of vogue. Most programs involve shorter timeframes and students majoring in social sciences, business, or management. From 1985 to 2003, the percentage of undergraduate students spending an entire academic year abroad dropped from 17.7 to 7.8 percent (IIE 2004). In the 2007 report, the number of students at all levels going abroad for a so-called long-term program of a full academic year account for only 5.5 percent of the total. From 1985 to 2006, the number of business majors going abroad rose from 10.9 to 17.7 percent while the number of foreign language majors dropped from 16.7 to 7.8 percent. Thus, the typical contemporary American study abroad sojourn does not involve a student embarking on a full year of in-country study with language learning expressly prioritized. The IIE’s 2007 report also lists aspects of the American international education experience remaining constant over the history of study abroad. First, a significant percentage of American students abroad choose Anglophone destinations, particularly the United Kingdom (18.2 percent) and Australia (6.1 percent), and the majority opt to study abroad in Europe (58.3 percent in 2005–2006) or Latin America (15.2 percent in 2005–2006). Secondly, study abroad attracts a majority of Caucasian students (83 percent in 2005–2006). The third of four years in college has long been, and remains, the preferred time for a sojourn abroad. Finally, the female to male ratio has remained stable throughout the history of study abroad (Gore 2005), with females in the majority: 65.5 percent female to 34.5 percent male in 2006. In light of these figures, policy documents such as the report of the Lincoln Commission highlight the need to diversify and to democratize the study abroad experience. The typical design and purpose of American study abroad programs merit examination. Since the 1950s, and in fact throughout their history (Hoffa 2006), these programs have involved students of relatively modest foreign language proficiency and limited experience of cross-border travel (Coleman 1997). These programs ‘generally envisage the short-term transfer of cohesive groups of American students to a different geographical base, where they may benefit from formal (classroom) and informal (naturalistic) language learning but without necessarily abandoning an American educational framework and academic/administrative support’ (Coleman 1997: 1). Student and teacher stances toward study abroad are shaped by a view of the college years as a period of transition from childhood to adult phases of life. During this period, the college or university functions in loco parentis to provide oversight of students’ bodies and minds as they discover

16


their adult predilections and prepare to assume personal and financial responsibilities (Matthews 1997). Whether they are at home or abroad, students receive nurture, guidance, and support for group solidarity and school affiliation. Within the American study abroad experience there is a core dilemma, since students are encouraged to retain a strong identification with their classmates and compatriots while also, independently, seeking out local connections and relationships. Although the number of students participating in study abroad programs has increased dramatically over the past several decades, Gore (2005) notes that study abroad is a feminized phenomenon in the United States and that the proportion of American students abroad remains low, at less than 3 percent of the total number of full-time students enrolled in four-year degree programs. Mystified by the persistent marginality of these programs, despite decades of policy decisions intended to promote them, Gore explores how ‘a constellation of dominant beliefs has coalesced to form an episteme held by the U.S. higher education community’ (2005: 23). Within the dominant discourse, ‘study abroad programs are perceived as attracting wealthy women to academically weak European programs established in a frivolous Grand Tour tradition’ (2005: 24). That is, study abroad is a parenthetical diversion from serious pre-professional endeavors and is appropriate mainly as a decorative finishing touch on the education of elite women. Underlying the perception that study abroad programs are inherently weak is a prejudicial attitude, fueled by poor understanding of overseas educational institutions, to the effect that education of true quality is only available in the United States. Alongside these dominant discourses, Gore also traces the long-term existence of ‘alternative voices’ heard among students willing to face challenge and undergo hardship in exchange for an educational experience unavailable at home. In the alternative view, study abroad is an academically rigorous aspect of training for future careers and for an enlightened perspective by way of the liberal curriculum. Since the tragic events of 9/11, moreover, it is argued that through education abroad, students ‘become effective citizens able to contribute to the nation’s development and the world’s peace efforts, having enhanced their own international knowledge’ (2005: 136). Given the changing demographics of study abroad, the design of mainly short-term programs and their occasionally antagonistic ideological environment as described above, it is clear that language learning is not uniformly prioritized in American study abroad programs. Yet, the English-language research base on language learning abroad includes a disproportionate number of studies involving students from the


United States. To explore this paradox will require a closer examination of this literature to reveal both the salience of study abroad as an environment for language learning and a tendency to focus on the earlier stages of the process. American researchers concentrate on language learning precisely because study abroad is believed to enhance motivation and foster realistic goals in a population with little experience of foreign travel, and because American students often begin their sojourns abroad with relatively low levels of language proficiency.

The European Union By contrast with the American, the Western European2 model of ‘student mobility’ or ‘residence abroad’ has emerged from a vastly different set of cultural, institutional, and political goals. In outlining a European perspective on language learning and study abroad, Coleman (1998) emphasized both the density of ethnic, cultural, and linguistic diversity within Europe and the continent’s history of internal conflict. Following millennia of continuous migration, conquest, and strife, the relatively small geographic landmass of Europe encompasses numerous distinct linguistic and cultural communities, offering readily accessible experience of other lands to young Europeans. Consequently, these young people, or at least those whose socio-economic background is typical of university students, have substantial experience of travel to other countries. Prior to formal periods of residence abroad, 95 percent of students participating in a survey in the mid-1990s had already visited the ‘L2land’ in question, often multiple times. For students of French and German this figure rose above 99 percent (Coleman 1998: 173–174). In their daily lives and family backgrounds, Western European participants in programs of student mobility have often accumulated substantial ‘mobility capital . . . enabling individuals to enhance their skills because of the richness of the international experience gained by living abroad’ (Murphy-Lejeune 2002: 51). These students may come from families of mixed national heritage, or from geographic regions where the crossing of national borders is an everyday affair. Multilingualism is part of their ‘natural habitat’ (2002: 53), and foreign language learning a routine and long-term practice of schooling. Because travel to other lands is easily achieved, and because foreign language study takes place over periods of eight to ten years, these students typically display advanced skills in an additional language or languages enabling them to independently carry out work or study assignments abroad.

18


Coleman (1998) summarizes the effect of these contrasts in terms of the organization and qualities of European residence abroad versus American study abroad. Whereas American programs supply academic structure and support from the home institution for relatively short sojourns, European models normally call for longer stays of a full academic year. Participants are often placed at universities abroad, either as foreign language assistants or as students, but they may also benefit from work placements. Whereas for American and Continental European students study abroad is usually optional, in the British system highlighted in Coleman’s paper, most students of languages were required to carry out a portion of their studies abroad. Crucially, and in direct contrast to the relatively insular American model, while these students are abroad they are interpreted as self-regulating adults capable of navigating local academic cultures, social situations, and institutional systems. At the level of policy, on a backdrop of its colonial history, of the two World Wars originating in Western Europe, and of more recent conflict in the former Yugoslavia, understanding European international education requires an appreciation of the ‘will to tolerance and integration respecting cultural and linguistic diversity’ (Coleman, 1998: 168). Two institutions in particular, the Council of Europe and the European Union, represent this political will and the practical policies enabling student movement and language learning in Europe. The Council of Europe, formed in aftermath of the World War Two, ‘seeks to develop throughout Europe common and democratic principles based on the European Convention on Human Rights’ (Council of Europe 2008). With 47 member countries, the Council serves as a forum for discussion of numerous social issues, promotes awareness of Europe’s cultural identity and diversity, and plays a significant role in language education policy. The Council’s language policy initiatives are designed to further pluriculturalism and plurilingualism, defined as the lifelong enrichment of communicative repertoires in languages and varieties thereof, to enhance egalitarian approaches to linguistic diversity, and to achieve mutual understanding, democratic citizenship, and social cohesion. The coordinated efforts of the Council’s Language Policy Division and the European Centre for Modern Languages include the development and promotion of universal proficiency standards through the Common European Framework of Reference for Language. Building on earlier and highly influential efforts to articulate functional goals for language learning, the Threshold Level (van Ek 1975), the Framework now shapes language education policy throughout Europe (Byrnes 2007).


The European Union is an economic and political partnership currently involving 27 member states. Inaugurated in 1951 as the European Coal and Steel Company, its original aim was to secure peace between victorious and vanquished nations by turning ‘the raw materials of war’ into ‘instruments of reconciliation and peace’ (Europa 2008). Since the 1950s the original union has expanded geographically and evolved in impact, renamed as the European Economic Community, the European Community, and in 1993, the European Union (EU). While retaining its historic goal of promoting peace, security, and prosperity within Europe, the EU’s explicitly stated contemporary mission includes both continued integration, including the cultivation of citizens’ identification with Europe, and preservation of cultural diversity. A key feature of EU policy, mobility is enhanced by the right of free movement within EU countries as instituted by the Treaty of Maastrict in 1993. Student mobility is interpreted as ‘an instrument of European construction’ (Murphy-Lejeune 2002: 1). Student mobility is supported by a broad array of national and regional initiatives, and by a number of supranational network programs such as TEMPUS (linking Western, Eastern, and South-Eastern countries), the EU–US Cooperation Program, or NORDPLUS furthering cooperation among the five Nordic Countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden). However, its most visible political foundation is the EU’s flagship educational initiative, ERASMUS (European Community Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students). Launched in 1987 with the goal of involving 10 percent of European students in international exchanges, the ERASMUS program provides grants for the organization of student mobility and for the mobility of individual students. It also supports inter-university cooperation and the European Credit Transfer System designed to ensure recognition of studies undertaken abroad. Over the past 20 years, the ERASMUS program has grown considerably: whereas in 1987, 300 universities exchanged approximately 3000 students (Coleman 1998), by 2007 the program involved 90 percent of the universities in the EU and served over 150,000 students and teachers annually (European Commission 2007). The EURODATA project offers statistics on student mobility from the period 1998 to 2003 (Wächter and Wuttig 2006). Participants in ERASMUS programs account for approximately one quarter of all foreign students in Europe, including participants in all other forms of cross-border education. They constitute a majority (87.7 percent) of students on supra-national programs of ‘credit mobility’ (2006: 162) in which participants move from home institutions to host institutions abroad and then return to finish

20


their studies at home. Students at the undergraduate level account for the majority, with 56.9 percent in 2002–2003 as compared to 41.5 percent at the postgraduate level and 1.6 percent at the level of the PhD. In terms of gender and field of study, the figures appearing in the EURODATA report resemble statistics representing study abroad in the United States, with females in the majority and a preference for specialization in business or technical fields. The distribution of male (40 percent) versus female (60 percent) participants remained steady from 1998 to 2003, with 38.6 percent male and 61.4 percent female students in 2002– 2003. In the same year, the most popular field of study for ERASMUS participants was business and management (21.4 percent), followed by languages and philology (16.3 percent), engineering and technology (10.5 percent), and social sciences (10.3 percent). Debate about student mobility in Europe, not surprisingly, centers around the extent to which it can be said to reach its goals. According to Papatsiba (2006), rationales for EU support in this domain can be summarized under two headings: (1) an economic and professional rationale wherein student mobility would promote the European labor market by predisposing individuals to cross borders more easily in their working lives; and (2) a civic rationale in which student mobility would forge a European consciousness and serve as a means to attain international understanding. Although these goals are to some extent complementary, they also speak to different audiences, with the first rationale appealing to an ‘increasing spirit of utilitarianism’ forged in response to market pressures (Papatsiba 2006: 102) and the second to the humanitarian aspirations of educators. These tensions are highlighted in the context of proposed reforms under the Bologna Declaration of 1999 in which member states agreed to create a barrier-free European Higher Education Area by 2010 through structural convergence of their higher education systems. Examination of the extent to which the ERASMUS program has in fact paved to the way toward such reform reveals disparities in the interpretation of purposes for student mobility along with figures suggesting that the program has much to accomplish before it reaches its goal of 10 percent participation. A study published by a Commission of the European Parliament (cited in Papatsiba 2006: 104) showed that only 1 percent of students took part in ERASMUS mobility schemes during the year in question. Furthermore, under pressure both to foster the excellence of their local institutions and to reinforce national or regional competitiveness, academics do not universally perceive involvement in student mobility projects as a gratifying and professionally relevant activity.


Although there is a growing knowledge base on the linguistic effects of study abroad by European students, particularly at advanced levels, European educational researchers have historically tended to highlight aspects of the civic goal outlined by Papatsiba (2006). Specifically, their concern for the development of intercultural competence in support of harmonious coexistence and mutual understanding overshadows their emphasis on language learning per se. To some extent, this phenomenon may be traceable to simple lack of interest in SLA on the part of European researchers (Coleman 1998). However, given the policy environment of European study abroad, the interpretation of study abroad as a context for autonomous learning, and the strong linguistic preparation of many participants, it may also be the case that the early stages of language acquisition are simply less salient in the Western European context than they are in the United States.

Japan The case of Japan offers another contrasting view of role of study abroad in relation to language learning. In Japan, although in principle various foreign languages are taught, in practice the study of English has become synonymous with foreign language learning and therefore also with the language-related goals of study abroad. According to Kubota (2002), ethnic and linguistic diversity within Japan is growing, but high school level enrollment in foreign languages other than English accounts for less than 1 percent of the total. English is taught at all secondary schools, in courses influenced by the content of university entrance examinations emphasizing reading and grammatical knowledge over speaking and listening skills. University admissions decisions are strongly influenced by scores on these examinations, because ‘it is believed that the English score is highly correlated with students’ analytical and logical thinking skills’ (Butler and Iino 2005: 30). Alongside the formal school system, many privately run institutes teach English conversation skills, thereby addressing an unmet yet widely perceived need. Butler and Iino (2005) outline the history of English-language education in Japan noting a tension, since the latter half of the 19th century, between English for practical purposes and English for university entrance examinations. The US–Japan Treaty of Amity (1858) signaled the end of Japan’s official isolation policy and the beginning of an era celebrating foreign language learning for practical purposes as a hallmark of modernization. When the formal secondary level education system was established in the 1890s, English became the main foreign

22


language offered at school. During the period of intense nationalism following victory in the Japan-Sino and Japan-Russo wars, communicative English lost much of its luster, yet knowledge of its formal properties retained a role as an ‘academic yardstick’ and ‘screening process for elite education’ (Butler and Iino 2005: 28). Following World War Two, and the reorganization of education by the US military occupation, English regained its role as a tool for communication. However, political and economic recovery from the war was accompanied by yet another return to an emphasis on the role of English in academic gate-keeping. In the latter decades of the 20th century, English-language education became a matter of public and occasionally acrimonious controversy. Among the more notable proposals for reform was Suzuki’s suggestion, in the 1970s, that English-language instruction become independent from the cultures of English speakers and serve primarily as an instrument for the transmission of cultural, economic, and technological information from Japan. Also remarkable was the proposal offered in 2000 by Funubashi and the Prime Minister’s Advisory Cabinet, to make English Japan’s second official language. Certain aspects of Suzuki’s proposal have retained credibility, but the notion that English should gain official status in Japan encountered serious objections, particularly since the emergence of ‘a new type of cultural nationalism’ (Butler and Iino 2005: 32) expressing fears about a negative effect of foreign influence on the purity of Japanese language and culture. Kubota (2002) describes the learning of English as an expression of cultural nationalism in contemporary Japan. At the peak of Japan’s economic development in the 1980s, trade imbalances began to generate international conflict and criticism. These problems were successfully deflected by a bid, on the part of government and industry, for membership in the Western industrialized community. This strategy did not, however, imply a move toward assimilation. Instead, it led to the current situation in which the protection of Japanese identity and cultural practices is juxtaposed with a selective appropriation of Western communicative modes, particularly the varieties of English in use in the United States and in the United Kingdom. Within contemporary kokusaika (internationalization) and gurôbarazêshon (globalization), the purpose of English language learning is to claim power through Westernization and to affirm Japan’s unique identity (Kubota 2002). In policy and practice, a clear aim of foreign language instruction is to express Japanese points of view to the rest of the world, just as Suzuki had suggested. Although foreign language study is promoted as a vehicle for international understanding, the


practice of teaching culture through essentialized images of Japanese versus American or British identity reinforces cultural nationalism and stereotyping. In particular, this practice perpetuates and strengthens ideologies related to nihonjiron, according to which the Japanese constitute a linguistically, culturally, and ethnically homogeneous nation, ‘uniquely unique’ and endowed with a highly distinctive, difficult language (Liddicoat 2007: 34). Overall, the emphasis is ‘based on nationalistic values relating to particular conceptions of Japanese identity rather than engagement with international perspectives and interculturality’ (Liddicoat 2007: 38). Following a period of economic stagnation, current policy once again promotes functional proficiency in English as the language of global economic power. It is commonly believed that the ability to communicate with foreigners, achieved via widespread communicative competence in English, would serve to bolster Japan’s status in the global political and economic arena. In 2003, therefore, the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Science, and Technology (MECST) articulated an Action Plan to Cultivate Japanese with English Abilities (MECST 2003) calling for reform of language curricula, teacher education, and evaluation in the direction of greater focus on communication. Major action items call for assessment of oral communication skills for both teachers and students, increased employment of native-speaking Assistant Language Teachers, creation of opportunities to use English outside of class, and increased participation in study abroad. Among the goals listed under the rubric entitled ‘Improving Motivation for Learning English’ are the following: Promotion of overseas study for high school students With a goal of 10,000 high school students studying abroad annually, support will be provided for overseas programs carried out by high school exchange and overseas study organizations and for the provision of information about locations for overseas study. Promotion of overseas study for university students Short-term overseas study for Japanese students utilizing such means as agreements for international exchanges between universities will be promoted and the provision of information relating to overseas study will be enhanced. The combined effects of longer-term post-war economic growth and government policy in support of international education have in fact

24


enhanced the accessibility of study abroad for Japanese students (Ayano 2006). The IIE Open Doors report (2007) notes that 1.5 percent of Japanese tertiary students studied abroad in 2004, with the majority in English-speaking countries (40,835 in the United States, 6395 in the United Kingdom, and 3172 in Australia). These figures no doubt include not only those students who participate in sojourns of pre-defined length, but also those enrolled in full degree programs. Despite these developments, however, according to Kobayashi (2007), in Japan most people display only beginner-level competence in English. The above-referenced MECST reforms were sparked in part by comparative data showing that average Japanese scores on the TOEFL (Test of English as a Foreign Language) were second to last among 18 Asian countries (Koike 2003–2004). Although English-language testing plays a major role in educational gate-keeping, ‘what is less publicly known is that English is not the major criterion for career advancement in many Japanese corporate sectors’ (Kobayashi 2007: 63). Moreover, in the corporate workplace, the long-standing tension between the symbolic and the practical value of English emerges once again, with preference assigned to the role of English as a sign of academic excellence. Japanese corporate culture places a premium on youth and academic prestige in hiring practices, with the understanding that employment has traditionally been a lifetime engagement and that workers’ identities and work preferences are partially shaped by their company affiliation. Elite employees, usually male, may benefit from corporate support for the use and learning of English, but the majority of workers and most women find little occasion to develop English-language skills at work. In combination with an ideology in which ageing for women is expected to be accompanied primarily by family accomplishments such as child-rearing and caring for the elderly, this situation has encouraged a population of both career-oriented and non-elite single adult Japanese women to study English abroad for personal reasons, combining language education with the realization of desire for travel and experience of Western culture (Piller and Takahashi 2006; Kobayashi 2007). Overall, conflicting ideologies and values surround language learning in study abroad for Japanese students. Officially, English-language competence is framed as a functional skill required of all citizens in the era of worldwide economic competition, but in practice English serves as a general indicator of academic prowess for access to career opportunities. Historically, moreover, ‘even during times when aspects of foreign culture were being brought to Japan, the influence that was adopted was also adapted’ (Koike 2003/2004: 49). In the case of English, Japanese


students face a fundamental dilemma as they are pushed to develop foreign language skills in order to affirm their own national identity. In parallel to the United States and Europe, the applied linguistics research on Japanese students abroad tends to reflect its own sociocultural context. The main focus is of course on the learning of English, and there is a particular recent emphasis on the pragmatics of that language, that is, the ability to navigate in real-world communicative settings, to manipulate speech acts and to enhance politeness. In adopting this focus, applied linguistics researchers appear to be responding to the general call for functional English skills, scrutinizing the study abroad context for its contribution in this domain.

Overview of the book Having established the distinct nature of study abroad in relation to migration and tourism, this chapter proposed three brief overviews of policy and demographics related to language learning abroad by students from the United States, Europe, and Japan. Exploring the broader contexts of research on language learning abroad, this overview elucidates the over-representation of American students. One obvious explanation for this disparity would of course be that North American researchers have considerable access to publication venues in English, the dominant language of international research. However, even a cursory examination of the distinctions in nature and purpose for study abroad in these three contexts suggests another potential explanation. Although researchers in any context do pursue a wide range of projects, their efforts are also shaped by local priorities and constraints. Paradoxically, it may be the low esteem in which language learning is generally held in the United States, and the unremarkable achievements of American language learners that fuel research interest in this topic. For Americans abroad, particularly in non-Anglophone environments, foreign languages become highly salient because they are relatively unfamiliar. Since opportunities for significant language learning are perceived as rare at home, American foreign language educators and applied linguistics researchers frame the study abroad context as a key venue for the development of language competence, even when they do not necessarily examine its qualities in international comparative perspective or question the motives of participants (Kinginger 2008). Among Western European researchers, by contrast, language is examined less often as a concern distinct from the furtherance of intercultural awareness. On a backdrop of Europe’s turbulent history and

26


current policy explicitly aimed at achieving supra-national affiliation and cultural convergence, European researchers examine the achievements of students who often present advanced language skills and ‘mobility capital’ (Murphy-Lejeune 2002) developed prior to official sojourns abroad. Japanese students normally go abroad in pursuit of competence in one language, English, whose symbolic value is a complex amalgam of responses to global economic competition, affirmation of cultural nationalism, and academic capital within local educational hierarchies. Under these circumstances, it is hardly surprising to discover that researchers examining Japanese students’ experience abroad focus more on the pragmatic dimension of language skill than, for example, on relations between language and intercultural awareness. Like the phenomenon of study abroad itself, the research on language learning in study abroad is extremely diverse, reflecting a broad array of scholarly agendas, sociopolitical agendas, and educational desiderata. What counts as ‘language,’ ‘learning,’ and ‘study abroad’ (or ‘student mobility,’ ‘residence abroad,’ ‘séjour à l’étranger,’ etc.) may vary considerably from one setting or project to the next. To achieve a coherent account of this research, I will adopt a historical perspective from the point of view of applied linguistics from the latter half of the 20th century to the present, that is, in the period accompanying exponential growth in programs involving students in deliberately temporary sojourns abroad for educational purposes. Although the entire range of approaches illustrated here continue to attract active interest among contemporary researchers, a survey of efforts to elucidate language learning in this context reveals that a historical approach is appropriate for two reasons. First, because research on study abroad has mirrored trends in applied linguistics more generally, it is occasionally useful to place particular studies in the context of their time, explaining how their design responded to contemporary issues. Secondly, using chronology as an organizing principle provides the book with something very like a narrative plot, with sub-plots, involving a progression of attempts to unravel the mystery of language learning in study abroad. The story, in brief, is one of increasing emphasis on particularity (van Lier 2005) in which efforts to arrive at generalizations raise more questions than they answer. Chapter 2 reviews the early history of research on language acquisition in study abroad, a field populated mainly by North American researchers, for the reasons outlined previously. The chapter then focuses on research guided by holistic definitions of proficiency or modalities of language use, including fluency, listening comprehension, and literacy-related skills of reading and


writing. Studies reviewed in this chapter emphasize the ‘products’ of participation in sojourns abroad and normally construe the sojourn itself as analogous to an experimental treatment. Because holistic constructs of language ability seemed ill-suited to capture the subtle gains taking place in study abroad, researchers began to look instead at components of communicative competence, examining linguistic, pragmatic, and sociolinguistic dimensions of language ability in separate studies reviewed in Chapter 3. Although tentative generalizations do emerge from product-oriented research, some results have been puzzling, including findings to the effect that study abroad does not necessarily promote the abilities dear to school teachers, such as mastery of discrete-point grammar, and findings showing an amplification of the individual differences in outcomes. These results inspired some scholars to set aside a purely product-oriented analysis in order to examine the process, that is, the activities of study abroad participants. Chapter 4 scrutinizes two kinds of research as they relate to the nature and impact of participation in study abroad: (1) studies attempting to correlate documented language development with student activity; and (2) ethnographic and other case studies investigating the qualities of student participation in specific communicative settings. Languageacquisition researchers taking an interest in the activities of students abroad have attempted in various ways to correlate use of time with developmental outcomes. The foundation of this research is the concept of ‘time-on-task,’ in which study abroad is believed to dramatically increase involvement with foreign languages, and a greater amount of time devoted to foreign language–mediated activity should predict proficiency gains. However, attempts to link language gains to reported uses of time do not always succeed. The story once again is about increasing specificity both in the instruments used to track student activity, and in general appreciation of study abroad as an environment for learning. Rather than assuming that study abroad constitutes an undifferentiated abundance of learning opportunities, researchers began to explore the particular contexts frequented by study abroad participants, the classroom, the homestay, and unplanned informal or service encounters. Ethnographic and other qualitative studies, often without an explicit focus on language, demonstrated both that the experiences of students are quite various and that it is unrealistic to assume a direct relationship between study abroad and linguistic immersion. In the absence of specific links between the practices of study abroad participants and the nature of their communicative repertoires, researchers had yet to establish precisely how study abroad fosters

28


language competence in ways distinct from classroom learning, and why some students excel in their language learning whereas others present only modest gains. Consequently, with the rise to prominence of research on language socialization and identity, researchers began to apply these perspectives to inquiry on study abroad. Following an introduction to language socialization research, Chapter 5 is devoted to studies problematizing the identities of study abroad participants, both in actual socializing encounters and in reflection on learning. The first section of the chapter examines studies, based on recordings of exchanges in homestay settings, documenting the precise nature of socializing interactions. The second section examines diverse ways in which two aspects of identity, gender and nationality, affect language socialization abroad. The studies reviewed in this chapter attempt in various ways to link the micro-level processes of language learning with their macro-level social and cultural contexts, thus leading in cyclical fashion back to the policies, values, and worldviews referenced in this chapter. Chapter 6 offers a broad overview of the findings presented in this book, reviewing variations on each of the three key terms in the title: ‘language,’ ‘learning,’ and ‘study abroad.’ The limitations of the contemporary research base are articulated in terms of the scope and design of studies published to date, and implications are outlined for policy, language education, and applied linguistics, with particular emphasis on the need for improvement in the ecological validity of study abroad research and for the interpretation of findings in international perspective.

2 Measuring Language Acquisition

A student cited in Colin Evans’ Language People has the following wisdom to share about the role of residence abroad in language learning: ‘There is only one way to learn a language properly. If you want to get to the heart of a language, you go out there’ (Evans 1988: 43). By observing that a sojourn abroad is the sole means to attain profound knowledge of a language, this student echoes both professional folklore and popular impressions of the study abroad experience. But what does it mean to ‘get to the heart’ of language, and how can this knowledge be demonstrated, documented, assessed – in a word – proven? If popular opinion would have us believe that study abroad leads to impressive changes in students’ language ability, can this opinion be substantiated with facts? What evidence has been gathered to support claims about the crucial role of study abroad as an environment for language learning? This chapter scrutinizes the history of attempts, on the part of applied linguists and language educators, to measure the outcomes of study abroad in terms of language ability. Although research on the language-related impact of study abroad is of course an international effort, it is widely recognized that this subfield of applied linguistics is dominated by US-based studies (e.g., Rees and Klapper 2007) exhibiting a strong commitment to utilitarianism (Kinginger 2002). That is, the design of many studies reflects desire to prove the effectiveness of study abroad, with learners developing language abilities analogous to ‘concrete’ products (Lafford 2004: 202). Thus, researchers define language competence in functional terms, striving to answer the kinds of questions that program administrators and policy makers might ask: How much competence do study abroad participants bring back with them, and is it different in kind from the competence of classroom learners? What is the optimum length of a 29

30


study abroad program? On balance, does study abroad yield results commensurate with the investment required to support it? The history of US-based study abroad research is also linked to the emergence of SLA as an independent field of scientific inquiry (Ellis 2000). As inhabitants of a relatively new scientific domain, SLA researchers are careful to defend their autonomy, working to ‘disentangle’ SLA from language pedagogy (Gass and Selinker 2001: 2). That is, in contrast to educational research emphasizing answers to practical questions, here SLA is most often interpreted as a universal and generalizable psycholinguistic process that may be influenced by different pedagogical treatments (in positive or negative ways) but that does not change in its fundamental nature according to context. For these researchers the study abroad context is a variable, albeit a complicated one, that may exert an indirect influence on acquisition. Context in SLA research has traditionally been reduced to two major possibilities: instructed versus naturalistic language development. Study abroad learners are a hybrid variety, with access to instruction but also with potential increases in their time-on-task and access to the language input and interaction believed to drive the acquisition process. Indeed, the very complexity of the situation may be one of the reasons why SLA researchers in general, as portrayed by Freed (1995a), have been relatively loathe to tackle study abroad, preferring instead to focus on more easily definable learning circumstances such as classroom interventions. In the end, however, the study of SLA in study abroad is usually understood primarily as the study of SLA and not as an inquiry into differential access to learning opportunities shaped by learners’ subjective desires or access to social networks, however interesting these may be. Desire to prove the effectiveness of study abroad for language learning first led researchers toward definitions of global constructs used in testing, such as ‘proficiency.’ With efforts to enhance the subtlety of findings, however, research constructs have been analyzed as component parts of increasing nuance. For example, general speaking proficiency may be interpreted as consisting in part of ‘fluency,’ and ‘fluency’ itself may be analyzed from a number of cognitive and sociolinguistic angles. Often, the meaning of study abroad as a learning context can best be demonstrated when precise definitions replace general categories and the conceptual tools of research gain in sensitivity to the social and interactive features of context. However, refinement in research constructs also generates new questions.

Measuring Language Acquisition 31

This chapter includes two major sections, focusing initially on the earliest studies of language learning abroad still frequently cited in the contemporary literature, Carroll’s (1967) survey of proficiency in college language specialists, and the Schumanns’ (1977) diary studies. The remainder of the chapter reviews research driven by global constructs of language ability, usually related to testing within particular modes of communication such as speaking or listening. These constructs include ‘proficiency,’ ‘fluency,’ ‘listening comprehension,’ ‘reading,’ and ‘writing.’ Research emphasizing outcomes tends to leave some interesting mysteries unsolved. For example, study abroad appears to be advantageous for the development of competence related to frequent practice in social interactive settings populated by expert speakers. Participants often make greater gains than do their peers in home classroom settings in speech rate, the ability to use formulaic language, and fluency. This finding in itself is not particularly surprising. On the other hand, some studies show that study abroad participants do not make particularly impressive gains in academic writing. In light of the fact that most programs and nearly all American offerings emphasize study abroad, these findings are somewhat puzzling. One may wonder what happens both in the instructional contexts that students encounter abroad and in their daily lives, such that academic abilities seem to take a backseat to social interactive competence in enough cases to produce statistically verifiable effects. Also, many of the outcomes-based studies reveal significant individual differences in language development among study abroad participants, and in some cases the effect of these differences seems to be amplified by the in-country sojourn (Huebner 1995). Variation in outcome is usually interpreted in terms of explanatory schemes where the learner’s identity is reduced to an array of individual difference factors such as attitude, motivation, or personality. Differential success is neatly categorized and the story ends, often with the unsuccessful learner-assigned motivational deficit, poor attitude, or inappropriate learning strategies. These studies are often grounded in the previously described view that context of learning has little appreciable effect on language acquisition except to the extent that it does or does not activate the learner’s internal language-acquisition mechanisms. Thus, the nature of study abroad experiences is infrequently depicted, learners’ own unique dispositions toward language learning are not considered, and we do not learn why some students prevail whereas others display only modest gains in documented language ability.

32


The early history of research on language learning abroad The roots of contemporary approaches to language learning abroad may be traced to the efforts of researchers working in the 1960s and 1970s to understand factors predicting language ability and to explain the interaction of psychology and social context in language acquisition. These studies (Carroll 1967; Schumann and Schumann 1977) illustrate that in research design, the search for explanatory power leads in one of two general directions. For Carroll (1967), the key to valid interpretation lies in robust findings of statistical significance based on language assessment, with the inclusion of a large pool of research subjects. For the Schumanns (1977), the source of insight is located instead within the subjective appraisal of specific learning experiences by individual learners. In Carroll’s study, 2784 subjects were recruited for short-term involvement in a battery of language tests, whereas the Schumann’s subject pool consisted of two people, namely themselves, providing narrative accounts of their personal experience. This contrast in approaches to evidence is further illustrated throughout the literature on language learning abroad, reflecting a similar sharp distinction between the values and methods of logico-scientific versus interpretive research in the broader field of applied linguistics (Ochsner 1979). It is crucial to recognize, however, that in the case of the studies reviewed here, the researchers were equally committed to discovering the causes underlying language acquisition. The earliest examination of the role of study abroad in developing foreign language competence that is still routinely cited is John B. Carroll’s (1967) ‘Foreign Language Proficiency Levels Attained by Language Majors Near Graduation from College.’ As the title indicates, the project was neither exclusively nor directly concerned with study abroad but was an attempt to characterize the range of proficiency attained by college language majors in the United States along with factors associated with variation in performance. The study was a national assessment project carried out with support from the US Department of Education under the National Defense Education Act (NDEA), legislation signed into law in 1958 by Dwight Eisenhower at the height of the Cold War. In addition to monies for science and mathematics education, the NDEA provided substantial federal funding for study abroad, language and area centers, and teacher training in foreign languages. Carroll’s report appeared in the inaugural issue of Foreign Language Annals, the journal of the newly created American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL). At the time, Carroll was affiliated


with the Educational Testing Service, the organization that would later pair with ACTFL in the development of the Oral Proficiency Interview assessment instrument. In the study, 2784 college seniors majoring in foreign languages (French, German, Italian, Russian, and Spanish) were tested using four instruments: (1) the MLA Foreign Language Proficiency Tests for Teachers and Advanced Students, consisting of subtests in the ‘four basic foreign language skills, Listening, Speaking, Reading, and Writing’ (Carroll 1967: 133); (2) a Professional Preparation Test in English; (3) the Modern Language Aptitude Test; and (4) a background questionnaire detailing foreign language learning history. A subsidiary study, involving participants in NDEA teacher training institutes, determined equivalences between the MLA Proficiency skill subtests and the ‘S’ (Speaking) and ‘R’ (Reading) proficiency ratings of the Foreign Service Institute (FSI) testing procedure based on individually conducted interviews. Because correlations between the MLA and the FSI tests were determined to be very substantial, the research team interpreted the findings of the study in terms of the FSI equivalences. Thus, though it was impractical to administer the FSI interview to 2784 individuals, results are reported as ‘absolute proficiency ratings’ (Carroll 1967: 133). The major findings of the study were of median attainment of audio-lingual skills considered low (FSI Speaking rating of 2+, between ‘limited working proficiency’ and ‘minimum professional proficiency’), of a weakly significant effect for concurrently tested aptitude, and of a strong association of skill level and study abroad: Time spent abroad is clearly one of the most potent variables we have found, and this is not surprising, for reasons that need not be belabored. Certainly our results provide a strong justification for a ‘year abroad’ as one of the experiences to be recommended for the language majors. Even a tour abroad, or a summer school course abroad, is useful, apparently, in improving the student’s skill. The obverse of this finding may be rather humbling for the foreign language teaching profession: those who do not go abroad do not seem to be able to get very far in their foreign language study, on the average, despite the ministrations of foreign language teachers, language laboratories, audio-lingual methods, and the rest. (Carroll 1967: 137) Thus, the Carroll study offered unqualified support for study abroad as a context for language development, along with an offhanded if rather devastating critique of the home-bound teaching practices of the time.

34


Reading Carroll’s study 40 years after its publication, the benefit of hindsight highlights several of its features. First is the very fact that Carroll’s team, equipped with NDEA funding, marshaled sufficient resources to test 24 percent of the college language majors in the United States (although the original targeted figure was 50 percent). In applied linguistics, comparable feats have rarely been repeated in the interval since 1967 (cf. Coleman 1996). Secondly, although the Foreign Service Institute’s operational definition of language proficiency would not become a major influence in language education until the early 1980s, it was already guiding the interpretation of research results as early as the 1960s. Finally, study abroad is represented as a quantity (amount of time), and presented as a causal factor: any amount of time abroad is useful in developing gain scores on the MLA tests (or their correlational equivalents). A conclusion had been reached, and Carroll’s authoritative and robustly supported claim about study abroad might well have been the end of the story. Indeed, Carroll’s solid claim about the effectiveness of study abroad remained firmly anchored in the background, supporting researchers’ efforts at bolstering the evidence for language learning abroad, refining research tools, and diversifying the contexts of their efforts. Carroll’s report became a landmark classic in a field that went on to problematize in myriad ways both the operationalization of language proficiency via test scores and the treatment of study abroad as an undifferentiated temporal variable. With further development of second-language research, and in the absence of NDEA funding, scholars began to question the notion that experiences and settings as complex as language learning and study abroad could be validly conceptualized as unitary factors. Large-scale studies such as Carroll’s passed out of vogue as attention was directed away from the product and toward the process of language acquisition in a range of specific contexts. This process-focus is illustrated in the work of SLA scholars who took up the cause of interpretive research based on learner diaries, beginning in the 1970s (Ochsner 1979; Bailey and Ochsner 1983). Studies of individual learners’ own stories of experience violated all expectations of the experimental paradigm dominating second-language research, ignoring the accompanying quest for statistical significance. In discussions surrounding the inclusion of research based on first-person accounts, however, the dichotomous relationship between experiment and interpretation is emphasized; an attitude of humility seeps through the scholars’ petitions for acceptance of non-experimental approaches. Ochsner (1979), for example, set forth a rationale for ‘perceptual


bilingualism’ based on the equally prestigious pedigrees of the nomothetic and hermeneutic traditions of intellectual inquiry. According to Ochsner, the nomothetic attitude assumes the existence of one ordered, discoverable reality that causally obeys the Laws of Nature. Hermeneutic science (the art of interpretation) assumes that reality varies and that human events must be interpreted teleologically, that is, according to the value of their results. Bailey and Ochsner (1983) go so far as to suggest that creative SLA research might be modeled after literary criticism, proposing a list of standards for judging diary studies based on such qualities as the studies’ ability to reveal otherwise unobservable, yet believable motives, the extent to which they respond to the needs of their readership, and the provision of thorough descriptions of the data-collection process. In diary studies of their own experiences abroad Schumann and Schumann (1977) and Schumann (1980) attempted to complete a causal model of language acquisition through inclusion of a subjective dimension. The authors scrutinized their own experiences learning Arabic in Tunisia, and Farsi in a classroom setting in the United States and in Iran at a time when J. H. Schumann was attempting to develop a causal model of SLA based on a combination of social and psychological factors. As elaborated in Schumann’s case study (1976) of a notoriously unsuccessful learner (Alberto), this model proposed that success or lack thereof be explained in the first instance by factors contributing to solidarity or social distance between the relevant groups. These factors include, for example, the relative status of the groups in relation to each other, the degree of enclosure of the groups, their size and cohesiveness, attitudes on the part of each group toward the other, and integration patterns (assimilation, accommodation, or preservation of group identity). In the event that social distance does not explain language acquisition, the model posited a second level including a variety of psychological factors such as cognitive style and personality variables (self-esteem, ego permeability, anxiety, motivation, and the like). The diary studies built on the notion that a third, additional level is required to complete the model. Individual learners display idiosyncratic ‘personal variables’ (Schumann and Schumann 1977: 247) based on subjective appraisals of learning situations. Schumann and Schumann therefore pointed to neglect of in-depth longitudinal case studies examining the social-psychological profiles of individuals in addition to their personal variables. Their 1977 publication offers short rewritten versions of the logbook data collected abroad, aiming to clarify, first, what the data revealed about the social psychology of second-language

36


learning that was not previously known, and secondly, ‘what the data told the subjects as individuals about their language learning’ (1977: 243). Curiously, in contrast to the ease with which Alberto’s failure to develop English-language proficiency had been attributed to a pidginization process arising from social distance (Schumann 1976), in this paper there is no analysis of proficiency development, and the authors glossed over the first research question (on the social psychology of language learning) stating that the diaries did not reveal new information. At the level of personal variables, however, the project ‘revealed idiosyncratic patterns of behavior’ (1977: 243) seriously affecting language learning for both subjects. For Francine Schumann, these factors included a withdrawal from learning elementary Arabic, due to noncompliance, in a classroom dominated by a strict interpretation of the audio-lingual method, and an ‘obsession with nesting’ (1977: 243) interfering with any focus on learning. Her nesting instinct was particularly difficult to satisfy in Tunisia where the lodging provided was infested by ‘a strange type of bug . . . that attacked us all summer causing us to look like smallpox victims throughout our stay’ (1977: 244). For John Schumann, the relevant personal variables turned out to be anxiety surrounding transitions, and preferences for a personal agenda and learning strategies sometimes at odds with the practices of the classroom. In summarizing the main thrust of their argument, the authors proposed the following compelling if now somewhat anachronistic analogy for mapping the complexity of individual learning pathways: (The authors) suggest that language learning be seen as analogous to the operation of a pinball machine. The machine is the total language learning situation. The knobs represent the social, psychological, cognitive, and personality variables mentioned above. In addition, there are knobs that represent age, aptitude, and instructional variables. The balls represent the learners and embody the sorts of personal variables that have been described in this paper. As each ball travels through the machine, it hits certain knobs and not others. In addition, it hits certain knobs more than others. The personal variables in each ball determine the path it takes through the machine and the extent to which it is influenced by each knob. No ball will exactly duplicate the path of any other ball, in the same way that no two learners will acquire a second language in precisely the same way. (Schumann and Schumann 1977: 248)


Despite the Schumanns’ initial reluctance to assign particular consequence to their own social situation as language learners abroad, in a reanalysis of the 1977 study, Francine Schumann (1980) reconsidered this stance in light of the particular difficulties she experienced as a female learner of Farsi in Iran. In this more socially situated version of the diary study F. Schumann rather prophetically announced a number of themes of which some would later come to prove constant in the qualitative study of language learning abroad. Specifically, she described constraints emerging from her somewhat ambivalent allegiance to a local expatriate community voicing negative feelings about Iran. She also commented on the disadvantages accruing to language learners who are speakers of English, due to the widespread use of that language, particularly in the service encounters where she might have been most likely to encounter expert users of Farsi. Finally, she noted the significant extent to which her languagelearning opportunities were limited by her gender: ‘I’ve come to believe after keeping a language journal that the task of learning the language of a country like Iran is far greater an endeavor for a woman than for a man’ (Schumann 1980: 55). In order to learn a language, she wrote, it is important to practice that language and to be immersed in it, ideally in the so-called target culture where opportunities for engagement in language-learning activity are believed to abound. In a retrospective examination of her earlier Peace Corps training in Farsi, she stated that ‘no one ever informed the female (italics in the original) language learner that in any given daily contact situation in Iran a good many of these opportunities are “off bounds” ’ (1980: 55). To dispel any potential illusion arising from the earlier publication, she then commented on the extreme rarity of her Farsimediated encounters outside the classroom, her social isolation, and the extent to which her independent movement was limited by fear of harassment. Interpreted in light of subsequent developments in second-language research, the Schumanns’ diary studies represent the epistemological limits of the social-psychological model while also tentatively raising the curtain on a more critical approach. That is, the pursuit of causal variables from the social to the psychological to the individual levels leaves the researchers in a position where the best metaphorical representation of the entire phenomenon is the pinball machine, where a hapless and unconscious object, identical to all its companion objects, runs a chaotic and meaningless course through an immutable social structure. At the same time, and without relinquishing an emphasis

38


on causal explanations, the analysis suggests intriguing possibilities for links between learner identity and the notion of social distance, and for consideration of the relationship between social practices and learning opportunities. After Carroll and the Schumanns, their conceptual and methodological tools, along with several themes and tensions, were passed on to the profession. Future researchers would base their work on global constructs such as proficiency, fluency, or pragmatic competence, often operationalized as tests. Such research designs aim to define the outcomes and judge the effectiveness of learner sojourns abroad, without necessarily taking into consideration the qualities of the experience. The assumption that study abroad is analogous to an experimental treatment remains in place. Other scholars would provide intriguing descriptive accounts detailing the nature of students’ subjective perceptions. Frequently, an underlying motive of these studies is the search for forces determining language acquisition abroad, but they rarely provide evidence about the specific achievements of study participants. In short, research on study abroad has exhibited tensions between product and process foci, similar to those of SLA more generally (e.g., Ochsner 1979; Block 2003; Firth and Wagner 2007). The expansion of process-oriented and qualitative approaches may be interpreted as a logical response to questions about the results of product-oriented studies, and these will be treated in subsequent chapters. Here, however, we examine the various ways in which the language-related outcomes of study abroad have been defined and assessed in research based on global constructs of language proficiency.

Holistic constructs: proficiency, fluency, listening comprehension, reading, and writing How do we know that students who have participated in programs of study abroad develop language ability? How can we tell that they have become more proficient speakers, better able to comprehend the language they read and hear, more precise in their control of language forms? One of the most obvious ways to find answers to this question is to ask the students, their teachers, or representatives of the speech communities in question. But if we base our claims only on subjective responses, how can we know that these responses are valid and reliable, not biased by personal proclivities, the presentation of the evidence, or the way the question is posed?


How do we know that the criteria invoked to judge learner language use are consistent enough to permit comparison? This section examines the ways in which researchers have employed holistic definitions of language ability, including general proficiency, oral proficiency, and literacy-related skills of reading and writing, in attempting to gauge the value of study abroad for language development. Beginning with studies based on subjective ratings of improvement in language skill, the section goes on to explore various global constructs used to assess the performances of study abroad participants. A number of studies have based their findings on systematic gathering of subjective perceptions among the people involved in learning, teaching, and interacting with students abroad. In the Nuffield Inquiry (Meara 1995), for example, 586 respondents from the United Kingdom rated the extent to which their language skills (speaking, listening, reading, and writing) had improved during their year abroad. Results, based on data gathered in the mid-1980s, indicated that students believed that their social interactive skills had improved more than their reading or writing abilities. Seventy-five percent of the students rated their improvement in the spoken language at four or five (on a scale from 1 to 5), and 87 percent gave similar ratings of their listening skill. For reading, however, only 49 percent of the participants rated their ability this highly, and for writing the percentage declined to 33. Meara concluded that ‘the year abroad has its most significant effects on spoken language, with the majority of respondents clearly holding the view that their ability to speak the foreign language and their passive listening skills had improved a lot’ (Meara 1995: C-11). With findings in parallel those of similar studies (e.g., Dyson 1988; Opper, Teichler, and Carlson 1990; Davie 1996), this project helped to lay the groundwork for an emphasis on social interactive competence in study abroad research. This emphasis is reflected in a study by Yager (1998) examining oral proficiency gains in a short-term summer Spanish program in Mexico. This study assessed changes in proficiency by asking a group of nativespeaking judges of varying age, nationality, and educational background to rate speech samples for the extent to which they seemed native-like in general, and in terms of grammar and pronunciation. The results showed that using this criterion, 22 of the 30 participants showed significant gain in at least one category, and 19 improved in all areas. Although these results are encouraging, and although Yager informs the reader that the raters were instructed to privilege nativeness over grammatical correctness, since these two qualities do not always overlap, it is impossible to ascertain based on the report precisely what criteria were

40


in fact invoked by the judges. If study abroad students tend to sound more like natives at the end of their sojourn abroad, what are the exact qualities of their language use that support this claim? Additional problems associated with subjective judgment criteria are illustrated in Lennon (1995), a study examining improvement in the language skills of four German students who spent two months in England. Subjective evaluations by experienced teachers of English as a foreign language were complemented by quantitative analyses of transcribed recordings. Once again this study showed positive changes in speaking skill, with more talk in the post-test along with greater control of modality. However, different teacher-judges favored different criteria in their ratings, leading to problems in achieving rater agreement. The more objective quantitative measures were also difficult to correlate with the findings of the subjective aspects of the study, leading Lennon to call for better variables to identify development of language skill in short-term programs. Studies based on subjective rating of student progress have asked the students themselves (e.g., Meara 1995), native speakers (e.g., Yager 1998), and experienced teachers (e.g., Lennon 1995) to judge the outcomes of study abroad in terms of language development. Results of the Nuffield Inquiry indicated that students experience greater growth in their social interactive abilities than in skills related to academic literacy, and in fact, the majority of subsequent studies have been devoted to inquiry into speaking abilities. Alongside the development of research based on subjective responses, another line of inquiry emerged in the 1980s, based on the global construct of ‘proficiency’ as defined in holistic testing instruments.

Proficiency The quest to define and document the emergence of proficiency is one of the major themes in applied linguistics research on study abroad, both in the United States and elsewhere. Study abroad research by American scholars of language education has been profoundly influenced by a particular construct of proficiency emerging from the policy-related exigencies of the late 20th century. In the years following Carroll’s (1967) report and the founding of the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL), the procedure used by the Foreign Service Institute (FSI) for the assessment of speaking competence in US government personnel was adapted for the academic community. Impetus for this project was provided by the recommendations of President Carter’s Commission on Foreign Language and International Studies


(1979), with a call for the development of practical, functional foreign language skills in US schools. Since the early 1980s, the influence of the ACTFL Oral Proficiency Guidelines has been widespread, both in the practices of foreign language educators and in reflection on the nature of language competence. Proficiency is often defined in opposition to achievement based on criteria established in specific instructional contexts. A proficiency test is assumed to ‘measure an individual’s general competence in a second language, independent of any particular curriculum or course of study’ (Omaggio 1986: 9). A reliable and valid measure of general language competence, not linked to any specific learning context, would offer an immediately accessible instrument for the evaluation or comparison of learning contexts. To derive an acceptable operational definition of general language proficiency, the scale used by the FSI was adapted by ACTFL in cooperation with the Educational Testing Service. Beginning with a scale running from 0 (no functional ability) to 5 (equivalent to an educated native speaker), the levels of oral proficiency were renamed to render them less intimidating, as ‘Novice’ (0), ‘Intermediate’ (1), ‘Advanced’ (2), ‘Superior’ (3 and 4), and ‘Native’ (5). Descriptors of the levels were generated in three categories representing Function (tasks), Content (topics), and Accuracy (acceptability/grammaticality). The ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI) was the first standardized procedure for assessing speaking ability made available to the US foreign language teaching profession. Although tests were developed for other modalities, it was the speaking test that proved most influential. The arrival of the OPI and accompanying ACTFL Oral Proficiency Guidelines (1986) launched a veritable industry in materials development, teacher education, and tester training. A phenomenon then dubbed ‘The Proficiency Movement’ was born. In fairly short order, the popularity of the Proficiency Movement began to generate dissent among SLA researchers and progressive scholars in language education. The validity of the proficiency definitions had been defended on the basis of their emergence from observation of language development: they were ‘experientially, rather than hypothetically based; that is, they describe how learners and acquirers of second languages typically function along the whole range of possible levels of competence’ (Omaggio 1986: 35). Scholars took issue with the notion that a valid scale, particularly in the area of Accuracy, could safely ignore ongoing empirical work on the routes to acquisition of grammatical competence (VanPatten 1985a; Kramsch 1987). They also questioned the validity of a scale implying the existence of one idealized, educated, and presumably monolingual Native Speaker model

42


(Lantolf and Frawley 1988), and that such a model is the proper standard against which to measure the competence of multilinguals or expert speakers of non-standard varieties (Savignon 1985; Barnwell 1989). They critiqued the interactive qualities of the test itself, proposing that interviewer bias could directly influence the performance of test takers and that, far from eliciting samples of authentically conversational language use, the interview was a particularly egregious manipulation of interactional authority on the part of the tester (van Lier 1989). Eventually, however, and despite this controversy, the ACTFL Oral Proficiency Guidelines exerted significant influence on language education in the United States, forming the default understanding of advanced language ability (Leaver and Shekhtman 2002). Researchers were quick to recognize the potential of the OPI as a universally recognized, presumably context-neutral assessment instrument.

Table 2.1 Assessment of proficiency development Study

Origin Destination

Sojourn length

Participants Instrument

Carroll (1967)

US

Varied

Varied

2784

Magnan (1986)

US

Varied

40

Freed (1990) Milleret (1991) Brecht, Davidson, and Ginsburg (1995) Coleman (1996)

US US US

Francophone countries France Brazil Russia

UK

Varied

Allen and Herron (2003)

US

France

Iwasaki (2007) Rees and Klapper (2007) Tschirner (2007)

US UK

US

MLA Proficiency Test OPI

6 weeks 1 summer 1 semester

40 11 658

Varied (normally I year) 6 weeks

18,925

Japan Germany

1 year 6 months to 1 year

5 57

Picture description and OPI role-play OPI C-Test

Germany

4 weeks

15

OPI

25

OPI OPI OPI

C-Test


A number of studies reported a potential relationship between time spent abroad and increases in OPI scores (see Table 2.1 and the mixedmethod studies in Chapter 4). In 1986, Magnan published the results of a study aiming to document current proficiency levels among undergraduate students of French at the University of Wisconsin, as a preliminary step toward the establishment of standards for the university’s language curriculum. Forty students were interviewed, including ten each from four groups: first-year, second-year, third-year French minors, and fourth-year French majors. Within these groups, the students who had spent substantial time in a Francophone country were among those with relatively high-proficiency scores, however the author was unable to document all ‘important intervening variables’ (Magnan 1986: 435). For example, at the second-year level of instruction most of the students earned scores in the Intermediate range, but one student who claimed to have spent 1–6 months in a Francophone environment displayed Advanced capabilities even at this early curricular stage. At the level of French majors (fourth year), all but three of the students scored at the Advanced level, and all had spent time abroad, but there is no apparent relationship between the amount of time spent abroad and the proficiency scores: Time in Francophone Country Less than 1 month (N = 2) 1–6 months (N = 3) 6–12 months (N = 4) 18 months (9 years prior, N = 1)

Proficiency Rating Intermediate High (2) Advanced (3) Intermediate Mid, Intermediate High, Advanced, Advanced Plus Advanced (Magnan 1986: 435)

Thus, in addition to pointing out the relevance of individual differences, this study suggested that the relationship between study abroad and proficiency is far from straightforward. Further studies went on to examine the value of this assessment instrument in specific short-term summer programs of study abroad in France (Freed 1990) and Brazil (Milleret 1991). The aim of Freed’s study was to assess development of achievement and proficiency in relation to the type and quality of out-of-class contact. The study enrolled 40 undergraduate participants with varying preparation in language courses who studied for six weeks in Tours, France. Measures of aptitude and motivation were taken along with assessment of out-ofclass contact using the Language Contact Profile, where contact was

44


defined as interactive (speaking with people) and non-interactive (reading books, watching television). Pre- and post-measures of performance included a discrete point grammar test (the College Entrance Examination Board Language Achievement Test, or CEEB) and the ACTFL OPI. The more advanced students tended to seek out more contact of both kinds (interactive and non-interactive), but there was no relationship between motivation or aptitude and pursuit of language learning in out-of-class contexts. In the case of achievement, interactive contact appeared to assist the lower level students only; for the advanced students, more non-interactive contact led to higher scores on the CEEB whereas interactive contact lowered their scores. These results are interpreted by Freed in relation to specific needs of beginners, who must master the ‘language of daily activities’ (1990: 473), versus advanced students who are working on their second-language literacy. In attempting to correlate out-of-class contact with growth in proficiency, the study encountered a major difficulty: perhaps due to the short duration of the sojourn in France, very little change was documented (only four of the six beginners scored differently in the post-test). Freed therefore suggested that the OPI, with its global, holistic scoring, lacks nuance in detecting short-term development in language ability: The OPI which utilizes one global holistic score for various aspects of language use is not sufficiently refined to capture growth in oral skills, particularly in a six-week period. Except for students at the very beginning level, there was little variation in OPI scores. We therefore found it difficult with this type of analysis to demonstrate any effect of out-of-class contact. In order to demonstrate change, future studies will have to utilize more finely-tuned analyses; those which will reveal, with specificity, development in students’ lexical breadth, syntactic complexity, stylistic sensitivity, sociolinguistic and pragmatic competence, and cohesion and coherence in language use. (Freed 1990: 475) Milleret (1991) developed the Portuguese Speaking Test as a pre-recorded interview format based on the ACTFL OPI. When used to assess gain in speaking skill among 11 participants in a short-term program in Brazil, this test measured significant gains in the cases of lower-scoring students, whose ratings rose by one level on average. However, students who began the study at the Intermediate level did not show measurable gains. Milleret interpreted these results by noting, with Freed, that the OPI is not sensitive to short-term changes, particularly at the upper


levels. In fact, the model of proficiency popularized in related publications (e.g., Omaggio 1986) represents this construct as an inverted cone, with the lower levels at the tip, and the volume of required knowledge expanding with each advancement. The higher the level, in other words, the more the student is expected to be able to do. The insensitivity of the scale left Milleret unable to claim that advanced level learners, those who are reputed to profit most from study abroad, had developed their competence in a study abroad program. This was true despite informal observation among students and instructors indicating that advanced students made more progress than beginners. Despite calls for more refined definitions of language competence, and despite the problems encountered in attempts to document proficiency development in study abroad via the ACTFL OPI, use of this instrument, or of variants or concepts based on it, has gone uninterrupted since its introduction. In particular, the development of speaking proficiency is a key aspect of a multi-year and multi-method study examining the development of Russian language ability: Language Learning in Study Abroad: The Case of Russian. Organized under the auspices of the American Council on the Teaching of Russian (ACTR) and the National Foreign Language Center (NFLC), the study focused on predictors of gain in language ability during four-month ACTR programs. The study was originally reported when data for 658 participants had been collected between 1984 and 1990 (Brecht, Davidson, and Ginsburg 1995). In addition to the Oral Proficiency Interview, assessment instruments included Listening and Reading examinations prepared by the Educational Testing Service, qualifying examinations in grammar and reading developed by the ACTR, and the Short Form of the Modern Language Aptitude Test. Demographic and program data along with detailed information about the language-learning histories of the participants were also collected. Findings related to oral proficiency showed that the main predictors of gain scores were experience in learning other languages, strong command of grammar and reading skills, and gender, a highly significant predictive factor, with men more likely than women to reach the ‘2’ (Advanced) level. Of these findings, the first two, according to the authors, speak to widespread views about the value of grammar instruction and the importance of metalinguistic awareness that had hitherto been held only intuitively. The results related to gender were far more controversial. Brecht, Davidson, and Ginsburg (1995) entertained three possibilities for interpretation of their findings related to gender. Beginning with the assumption that there is no real difference between men and women in

46


language-learning ability, they treated and rejected the hypothesis that there was a gender bias inherent in the testing instruments. They suggested but did not explore the possibility that the sample was skewed, with self-selection of the minority male population representing high motivation or talent for language learning. Finally, they proposed that gender differences may emerge from differential treatment and qualities of interaction while abroad: . . . one might hypothesize that men and women spend their time differently in-country, and that, therefore, the difference in acquisition might be due to a difference in time-on-task. On the other hand, one might imagine a difference between the interactions of American men and women with Russian men and women as a reflection of the two cultural differences involved: American and Russian, as well as male and female. (Brecht, Davidson, and Ginsburg 1995: 57) The authors further suggested that Russia is not the only society where American students study abroad and where women receive differential treatment that may affect language acquisition. In the case of this large-scale study documenting language learning in sojourns of at least one semester, Brecht, Davidson, and Ginsburg (1995) were able to establish a correlation between pre-program predictive variables and proficiency gain scores. In the case of the other studies reviewed here, involving shorter sojourns or smaller cohorts, the levels described in the ACTFL Guidelines proved to be too blunt an assessment instrument, leading to frustration on the part of researchers who observed changes in speaking ability but were unable to document them officially. Beyond noting problems with lack of refinement in the scale, few study abroad researchers seem to question the model itself or otherwise take early criticism of the OPI into account when interpreting their findings. There is but one sour note among all the implicit praise of the OPI procedure: after observing that certain speech acts in Russian, such as proposing a toast at table, tended to be reserved for males, Polanyi (1995) suggested that the speaking tasks imposed upon interviewees in the OPI are likely to present a gendered dimension potentially harmful to the ecological validity of the procedure, that is, the extent to which the observed phenomena are relevant to participants and are representative of their daily lives (Cicourel 2007). Polanyi implied that the test itself placed female students at a disadvantage, asking them


to display pragmatic functions that had been off-limits to them during their stay in Russia, in essence, limiting their chances at success because their interactive experiences did not match the demands of the interview. Despite claims to the effect that the OPI measures contextindependent language ability, in other words, each individual test is an assemblage of particular topical or functional tasks that may or may not correspond to students’ history of language use and may or may not take issues of gender and power into consideration. This criticism notwithstanding, the ACTFL Guidelines continue to inform the design of study abroad research, particularly a number of studies reviewed in Chapter 4 attempting to correlate the activity of students abroad with test outcomes. While American researchers tended to favor the ACTFL Guidelines and an emphasis on speaking ability in assessing general language proficiency, the European Language Proficiency Survey (Coleman 1996) and a subsequent study by Rees and Klapper (2007) relied on a holistic instrument known as the C-Test. The C-Test is assumed to measure overall language ability by imitating the conditions under which expert language users reconstitute meaning based on incomplete texts (such as would occur, for example, in the case of illegible handwriting). As a test of reduced redundancy, the C-test is created by deleting parts of words (the second half of every second word) from a series of authentic texts and asking test takers to reconstitute the original message. According to Coleman (1996) students who are the most proficient do so most successfully, ‘by calling on the whole of their foreign language competence. The clues which are unconsciously analysed may be semantic, syntactic, morphological, collocational, etc., and solutions may require inferencing from other parts of the text’ (bold in the original) (1996: 137). Although it has no oral or aural component, the C-Test provided a reliable and efficient snapshot of proficiency for a cross-sectional study involving over 25,000 students of French, Spanish, German, English, and Russian in the United Kingdom and in seven other European counties between 1993 and 1995. Like Carroll’s earlier project, the aim of the European Language Proficiency Survey was not merely to investigate the effects of residence abroad, but to characterize the language abilities of students at all levels along with the nature of their courses and their attitudes and motives for learning. Coleman’s findings for students from the United Kingdom (N = 18,825), in parallel with Carroll’s, suggest an important role for residence abroad, obligatory for the majority of subjects. Across the four languages under study, mean scores for students in the final year of

48


study, after an in-country sojourn, were substantially higher than those of students who had yet to study abroad. Coleman also reports a significant correlation between time spent abroad (less than a term, a term, a semester, or a year) and scores on the C-Test. In a study involving 57 students of German, Rees and Klapper (2007) sought to replicate Coleman’s findings using a longitudinal rather than a cross-sectional design. This project also investigated the predictive power of several factors, including gender, general educational history, previous language-learning experience, length of stay, and academic ability as measured by IQ scores. Results from two pre- and post-residence abroad proficiency measures, the German version of the C-Test and a test of grammatical knowledge, provided evidence for accelerated proficiency gain during residence abroad, although these gains were less dramatic than those reported in the Coleman (1996) study. In contrast to Brecht, Davidson, and Ginsburg’s (1995) findings, this study indicated no predictive effect for gender. Neither IQ, nor length of residence abroad (six months versus one year), nor previous academic achievement (i.e., grades) predicted gain. However, the cohort included two groups: specialists who had received considerable instruction in discrete-point grammatical features of German, and non-specialists whose instruction had favored naturalistic exposure to grammar. A comparison of these two groups indicates that the latter approach conferred an advantage in residence abroad. Finally, like many other studies based on holistic constructs, this project documented considerable individual differences in rates of progress toward language proficiency. Effort to assess general proficiency in European projects, as illustrated by these two studies, bears some resemblance to its American parallel. In large-scale projects, scores on holistic testing instruments like the C-Test, the ACTFL OPI, or the Modern Language Association Foreign Language Proficiency Test indicate that, in general, study abroad has an important role to play in developing language ability. In studies where measures are multipled and refined, the findings generate numerous questions. What conditions might account for the fact that overall proficiency growth in the more recent study by Rees and Klapper (2007) fails to reach the level previously documented by Coleman (1996)? Why is female gender a predictive factor for American learners of Russian, but not for British learners of German? Why do some students, but not others, seem to reach a plateau in their proficiency development after six months abroad? If there really is no relationship between general academic prowess and language learning abroad, what capabilities are


needed to further students’ success? In the meantime, the discovery that tests of general proficiency did not in fact document many of the subtle changes taking place in study abroad participants’ speaking ability led to exploration of another holistic construct, fluency.

Fluency Fluency is defined in the American Heritage Dictionary as ‘effortless,’ ‘flowing,’ or ‘polished’ language use, and is often cited as a major goal and expected outcome of language learning abroad. According to Freed (1995b: 123), in fact, fluency is ‘the term most frequently evoked in discussions of the linguistic benefits of study abroad.’ Although the term is ‘deeply embedded in lay linguistic perceptions’ (McCarthy 2006: 2), in language-learning research the concept has been elusive. Upon launching a multi-year effort to investigate the development of fluency in study abroad, Freed (1995b) noted the absence of a widely shared technical definition suitable to inspire research. For Freed, fluency seemed to consist of an ‘impression’ (1995b: 123) arising from the interaction of hearer perceptions and some combination of speaker attributes, such as speed of delivery, intonation, or accuracy. The study abroad literature includes eight studies focused in various ways upon fluency (see Table 2.2). In the broader applied linguistics literature, definitions of fluency typically focus on the characteristics of individual performance, including rate of speech, pause length, or the naturalness of rhythm and intonation (McCarthy 2006). Accordingly, in the study abroad literature the assessment of fluency is based upon monologic speech samples collected before and after the sojourn abroad via experimental tasks or oral examinations such as the OPI. These samples may then be evaluated by native speakers, analyzed in terms of temporal characteristics of speech delivery, or examined for the presence of routinized formulaic sequences believed to bolster listeners’ impression of fluency. Overall, these studies not only provide evidence in support of claims that study abroad enhances fluency, but also raise questions about the qualities of study abroad experiences and the nature of fluency itself. In the American applied linguistics literature, a series of studies by Freed and colleagues constitute the most prominent investigations of fluency development in study abroad. Freed (1995b) reports on a project involving native-speaker judgments of fluency based on extracts of OPIs administered to 30 students, of whom 15 had studied abroad in France and 15 had remained on campus for one semester. An improbable early

50

Table 2.2 Assessment of fluency development Study

Origin

Destination

Sojourn length

Participants

Data/Analysis

Freed (1995b)

US

France

1 semester

OPI/7 factors of fluency

Towell, Hawkins, and Bazergui (1996) Freed, So, and Lazar (2003)

UK

France

6 months

15 abroad, 15 at home 12

US

France

1 semester

Freed, Segalowitz, and Dewey (2004)

US

France

1 semester

Segalowitz and Freed (2004) O’Brien, Segalowitz, Freed, and Collentine (2007) Juan-Garau and Pérez-Vidal (2007) Wood (2007)

US

Spain

1 semester

US

Spain

1 semester

Spain

Anglophone environment Canada

3 months

15 abroad, 15 at home 8 abroad, 8 at home, 8 in domestic immersion 22 abroad, 18 at home 25 abroad, 18 at home 12

6 months

4

Japan

Film retelling/Quantitative and qualitative Essays/Native speaker judgment OPI, LCP/Overall performance and hesitation

OPI, LCP, Tests of lexical access and attention control OPI, Test of phonological memory Role-play/Fluency, accuracy, formula use Narrative retelling/Temporal variables, Formula-Run ratio


finding of the study was that comparison of the two total populations yielded no statistical difference in the native-speaker assessments of gain in fluency. When the research team included only those students whose pre-departure fluency received a low rating, they were able to show a difference in gain scores between the ‘at home’ (AH) and ‘study abroad’ (SA) groups. A subsequent analysis closely scrutinized features of the same utterances heard by the native-speaker judges, for a selected subset of each group. Of the seven ‘factors of fluency’ (1995b: 136) chosen for analysis, only rate of speech proved significant, suggesting that students who had spent a semester abroad ‘spoke both more, and at a significantly faster rate than did those whose learning had been restricted to the language learning classroom at home’ (1995b: 137). Other features examined included the nature of pauses, the length of fluent speech runs, repairs, and ‘clusters of dysfluencies’ defined as the presence of two or more interruptions to the flow of speech. Although between-group comparison of these features per se did not suggest a significant advantage for the study abroad participants, study abroad participants tended to display fewer dysfluent features. That is, their speech runs were longer and characterized by fewer unfilled or unduly long pauses. Moreover, these students demonstrated a relatively high level of linguistic sophistication in their attempts to communicate complex ideas. Having presumably engaged in extensive conversational interaction, these students wanted to do more with their foreign language, and this desire led them into situations where they ‘stumble linguistically, monitor their speech and self-correct along the way’ (1995b: 141). In a companion study, Freed, So, and Lazar (2003) employed a similar methodology in eliciting native-speaker judgment of written fluency based on essays about a memorable trip written at the beginning and end of the semester by the same students whose oral fluency was evaluated in Freed (1995b). Native-speaker judges were again asked to rate the fluency displayed in the essays based on subjective criteria, and the researchers sought correlates of these judgments in the actual texts. Based on ‘grammar,’ ‘vocabulary,’ ‘expression of thought,’ and ‘organization,’ the native speaker judges perceived the written fluency of the AH group to be higher than that of the SA group. In fact, nothing in the judges’ perception ‘seemed to suggest that the SA students’ writing was more fluent as a result of their having spent a semester abroad’ (2003: 37). An independent analysis of textual features showed that at the end of the semester, the SA group essays grew in length and lexical density, whereas those of the AH group did not. (One explanation proposed for

52


this difference is that the SA participants had more interesting stories to tell.) When considering change from the pre-test to the post-test, there was, however, no difference in the two groups’ performance on measures of grammatical correctness. The authors concluded that while the construct of fluency is supported by identifiable linguistic features, these features do not always contribute in predictable ways to the assignment of fluency ratings. Both of these publications suggest that one valuable outcome of study abroad is growth in students’ communicative ambition, that is, study abroad participants enlarge their repertoire without necessarily refining it in the areas of grammatical or lexical accuracy valued by native judges. This result is matched by the findings of Allen and Herron (2003), for example, whose study of American learners in France also shows significant growth in fluency but only modest improvements in grammatical correctness. In both, however, the authors also point out the striking nature of differences in individual performance that tended to compound the problems associated with achieving statistical significance. Freed (1995b) noted that among the subjects whose data were selected for close analysis, at least one of the AH study participants performed at least as well if not better than the SA subjects, and that two of the SA participants had scores on fluency measures similar to those of AH students. In the study of growth in written fluency (Freed, So, and Lazar 2003), however, these same two students displayed ‘vast jumps in lexical density’ (2003: 38). In these studies, individual differences are absorbed in the effort to document group differences, yet their presence must be noted. Subsequently, Freed and her colleagues have continued to pursue the elusive construct of fluency through further comparative studies and definitions of increasing precision. Freed, Segalowitz, and Dewey (2004) studied the acquisition of oral fluency by students in three different contexts: AH, SA, and enrollment in domestic immersion programs (IM) integrating formal classroom and out-of-class sheltered learning opportunities. The researchers refined the notion of context by focusing on time-on-task factors, including instructional time and time spent speaking with natives and in literacy-related activities. The study involved 28 native speakers of English learning French in one of the three program types for the period of one semester, in the case of the AH and SA programs, and of seven weeks in the summer IM program. The IM program was characterized by abundant French-mediated extracurricular activities, and a pledge to use only French in all contexts, signed by all participants. SA students lived in Paris taking courses either with


their peers or at a local institution of higher education. Data collection included pre- and post-test interviews modeled after the OPI administered at the beginning and the end of the session, and a Language Contact Profile in which students reported on the amount and type of their activity in English and French. Assessment of oral fluency was based on data extracted in one-minute segments from the interviews, with two such segments taken from each testing session, yielding four minutes of speech for each participant. Fluency was operationalized: (1) as general measures of oral performance (total words, duration of speaking time, and length of the longest turn); and (2) as hesitation and temporal phenomena (speech rate, hesitation, pauses, mean length of speech run without dysfluencies, repetitions, or repairs). Results showed that the AH group’s performance did not change from pre- to post-test except in the case of three variables where six of the eight students performed worse. By contrast, the IM group registered significant gains for total words, turn length, and rate of speech as well as in the areas of repair and mean length of fluent run of speech. An independent measure of speech fluidity, grouping together the measures of hesitation and absence of interruption, showed the IM group making the greatest gain, the SA group making some gain, and the AH group making no gain at all. Reading these results in light of data gathered in the Language Contact Profile, the authors found that the IM group reported significantly more contact hours in French than the other two groups, and spent more than four times the amount of time in French language–writing activities than did the others. The SA group, by contrast, reported spending more time in English than in French outside of class in all activities except listening. Time-on task, as reported in the Language Contact Profile, therefore appeared to be a potent variable predicting the development of fluency, with more time-on-task involved in domestic immersion than in study abroad. The authors insisted that they did not wish to argue for the inherent superiority of IM programs. They proposed that it is not the context per se that predicts learning, but that it is ‘the nature of the interactions, the quality of the experiences, and the efforts made to use the L2 that render one context superior to another with respect to language gain’ (Freed, Segalowitz, and Dewey 2004: 298). Additional studies by Freed and her colleagues have pursued the cognitive dimension of individual differences in the fluency-related outcomes of study abroad. Segalowitz and Freed (2004), for example, examined the role of cognitive processing abilities (lexical access and

54


attention control) in fluency development. Students of Spanish enrolled in an SA program in Spain were shown to outperform their AH counterparts on the OPI and in related measures of fluency. Gains on the OPI were significantly related to initial levels of lexical access processing and speed, suggesting that ‘fast, efficient abilities to connect words and meanings facilitated learning to speak more proficiently’ (2004: 194). O’Brien, Segalowitz, Freed, and Collentine (2007) demonstrated a significant relationship between phonological memory (the ability to retain phonological elements and their serial order in the short term) and oral fluency development. These studies suggest that achievement of fluency in study abroad contexts may be partially attributable to the individual learner’s general or language-specific cognitive skill and readiness for learning. While these American researchers interrogated the process of fluency development through increasing focus on individual cognitive differences in students of modest initial proficiency, the UK-based scholars Towell, Hawkins, and Bazergui (1996), working with advanced learners of French, examined both temporal variables and qualitative differences in more- versus less-fluent second-language use. These researchers borrowed Levelt’s (1989) model of language production, positing three sub-processes in language production (the conceptualizer, the formulator, and the articulator) and Anderson’s (1983) view of development as the proceduralization of declarative knowledge. They suggested that close examination of temporal indicators not only measures global fluency but also illustrates the contribution of sub-processes in Levelt’s model, particularly the formulator where procedural knowledge is stored. Twelve learners of French provided speech samples based on a film-retelling task before and after a six-month sojourn in France. The samples were subjected to a quantitative analysis focusing on speaking rate, phonation/time ratio, articulation rate, and mean length of run, defined as the average number of syllables produced between pauses of .28 seconds and above. The evidence indicated that the students became more fluent, as measured by speaking rate, and that increases in the mean length of run accounted for most of this development. Having established the significance of mean length of run, the researchers then performed a qualitative analysis in search of the kinds of linguistic knowledge proceduralized for the development of fluency. In order to produce longer utterances between pauses, the participants were shown to recruit knowledge of syntax, and of fillers, organizers,


and formulaic chunks such as lexical phrases and collocations. This knowledge allowed the learners not only to extend the length of their utterances but also to sound ‘more “French” ’ (Towell, Hawkins, and Bazergui 1996: 112). For example, one of the most fluent participants in the study relied heavily on basic Subject-Verb-Object sentence structure prior to study abroad (e.g., Ils ont rencontré, Il était différent, Ils ont commencé) but in the course of her sojourn abroad had learned to employ certain structural variants characteristic of spoken French, such as double marking of topics (l’histoire, ça commence), and presentatives (il arrive un jour qu’il y a un petit rond qui arrive). Hesitation in the pretest was related to issues like uncertainty about the gender of nouns, but in the post-test appeared to signal efforts at greater precision in rendering concepts. The authors concluded that growth in fluency is not due to decreases in pausing or increases in the rapidity of articulation, but is attributable primarily to the length and complexity of utterances. Another approach to the assessment of developing fluency is illustrated in the work of Juan-Garau and Pérez-Vidal (2007), affiliated with the Stay Abroad and Language Acquisition (SALA) Barcelona project analyzing the impact of study abroad on the English-language competence of Spanish-Catalan bilingual students preparing diplomas in Translating and Interpreting. A key innovation of this study is its longitudinal design, involving testing of the same participants at four moments: the beginning of their degree program, the end of a six-month period of formal instruction, their return to the university following a three-month stay in an Anglophone environment, and 15 months later. Juan-Garau and Pérez-Vidal (2007) focus on the oral performance of these participants in role-play and narrative tasks, measuring a variety of factors including fluency (in words per clause or sentence), accuracy (grammatical and lexical errors), complexity (in clauses per sentence and dependent clauses per clause) and rate of formula use. Their findings generally show that following a period abroad students increased their lexical and formulaic repertoires, made fewer errors, and used more and longer clauses. More importantly, with the exception of formulaic language and subordinate clause use, many of these gains were retained after a period without instruction, suggesting that study abroad can have a durable impact on students’ fluency. The specific role of formulaic sequences in fluency development was explored in a study by Wood (2007) in which four Japanese learners of English in a program of study abroad each provided six consecutive samples of speech in narrative retelling tasks. Wood suggested that the

56


key to fluency is ‘the use of formulaic sequences, strings, and frames of words with specialized functions, mentally stored and retrieved as single words’ (2007: 209). Like other fluency researchers, Wood examined an array of basic temporal variables; however, among these variables he included a Formula/Run calculation indicating the ratio of length of runs and the number of formulaic sequences in the sample. Wood’s results showed strong development on this indicator: the participants did indeed increase their use of formulaic sequences in producing longer runs of speech between pauses. Wood concluded that broad experience with spoken language is an important element in the development of fluency, that study abroad can aid learners in reaching fluency goals, and that further research is needed involving a wider range of discourse genres, including dialogic conversation. Wood’s suggestion is reasonable, given that most efforts to illuminate the development of fluency in study abroad to date involve ‘judging a speaker on monologic performance, or based on an oral examination where assessors hold back from interacting like normal human beings’ (McCarthy 2006: 5). In the case of the Juan-Garau and Pérez-Vidal paper (2007), student utterances are evaluated as sentences, that is, as if they correspond in each case to the norms of writing. Relying on evidence from native-speaker corpora of natural language use, McCarthy takes issue with the notion that fluency is best understood as the display of individual skill judged in terms of speech rate, pause phenomena, or mean length of run. Native speakers providing data for corpora are normally assumed to be fluent, yet their performance often exhibits features such as intersentential pausing, redundancies, or slow pace, that would be considered dysfluent in the models reviewed thus far. McCarthy provides the following example from the Cambridge International Corpus, in which the participants are discussing plans for a trip to Italy: A:

Where would you tell me to go? And then to a two week trip. Where would you tell me to go? B: Okay. Um well let’s see. You’re gonna want to . . . You’re gonna want to see I mean since you are there for two weeks you’re you’re probably gonna you know you’re just gonna have to see the . . . You’re not gonna have time to really wander around and so you’re gonna want to go where the churches are and+ A: Uh huh. B: +the museums are+ A: Uh huh.


B: +so I would say go to Rome and go to Florence [. . .] B: ‘Oh I don’t know what this is all about but let’s [laughing] just+ A: Let’s check it out. B: +park and go see’. (McCarthy 2006: 3) In addition to fulfilling the temporal criteria established in the literature on fluency, these speakers use formulaic chunks of high frequency in the corpus (You’re gonna, I would say, I mean). They do not necessarily speak in sentences. Moreover, the conversation itself is fluent, in that the speakers take it to be a joint responsibility and support one another through back channeling (uh huh) and completing each other’s turns. What fluent speakers do in dialogic interaction may therefore be more like establishment of confluence than display of individual skill. To date the literature on development of fluency in study abroad rarely takes the features of spoken language or conversational interaction into account. Instead, researchers have collected and analyzed samples of speaking performance showing that study abroad generally promotes the ability to speak quickly, without hesitation, and using more complex structures (Juan-Garau and Pérez-Vidal 2007). Research involving American students of modest initial proficiency suggests that study abroad enhances communicative ambition, leading them to attempt a greater variety of language functions in ways that do not necessarily please native-speaking judges (Freed 1995b; Freed, So, and Lazar 2003). This research also suggests that time-on-task for fluency development is more typical of programs engineered for language immersion than of study abroad (Freed, Segalowitz, and Dewey 2004), and that individual variation in outcomes may be ascribed in part to cognitive factors (Segalowitz and Freed 2004; O’Brien, Segalowitz, Freed, and Collentine 2007). The projects of Towell, Hawkins, and Bazergui (1996) and of Wood (2007) demonstrates the relevance of formulaic sequences, suggesting that students need exposure to specific patterns and features of spoken language in order to develop fluency. Given that domestic immersion programs are sheltered learning environments, one may wonder if in fact the gains registered for temporal variables in Freed, Segalowitz, and Dewey (2004) would correspond to greater approximation of norms for speaking as documented by Towell, Hawkins, and Bazergui (1996). That is, can domestic immersion programs offer students engagement with a range of authentic varieties of speech, including those practices that may be common but

58


are not officially recognized in pedagogical materials, or does study abroad offer unique affordances in learning to sound, for example, ‘more “French” ’? Another mystery emerging from these findings concerns the question of time-on-task in domestic immersion versus study abroad programs. Why would study abroad participants report spending less time involved in foreign language–mediated activities, and exhibit less fluency development, than domestic immersion students? Professional folklore surrounding study abroad would equate an in-country sojourn with effective language immersion, but the findings of Freed, Segalowitz, and Dewey (2004) indicate that this view may be somewhat naïve. This section has examined studies organized around the construct of fluency, but fluency is of course much more than speech rate or manipulation of formulaic sequences. Questions about how fluent learners become during study abroad sojourns touch on a wide range of issues, including the extent to which they develop lexical, grammatical, and phonological competence, approximate the manipulation of sociolinguistic variants in the manner of expert speakers, and develop interactive competence permitting them to construct fluent conversations in the manner depicted by McCarthy (2006). Moreover, fluency is matter of impression management in interaction, and is therefore related to the kinds of communication strategies that learners adopt for navigating conversations. Before turning to these issues, however, to complete the review of studies guided by holistic constructs, it is necessary to consider how other global definitions of language proficiency have been investigated in study abroad contexts.

Listening comprehension Study abroad participants usually report more significant development of abilities related to social interaction than in reading and writing (e.g., Meara 1995). In the research on language-related outcomes, there is a corresponding imbalance weighted in favor of investigating speaking ability. Few studies focus explicitly on listening comprehension, and fewer still on the outcomes of study abroad that are related to literacy. The investigation of listening comprehension is limited to five recent studies (see Table 2.3) most of which gathered data via standardized tests. Everyday listening comprehension is likely to present considerable challenges to the typical American classroom language learner abroad. Kaplan (1986), for example, presented the results of a survey asking

Measuring Language Acquisition 59 Table 2.3 Assessment of listening comprehension Study

Origin Destination

Sojourn length

Participants Instrument

Huebner (1995)

US

Japan

9 weeks

12 abroad, 12 in domestic immersion

Allen and Herron (2003)

US

France

6 weeks

25

Tanaka and Ellis (2003)

Japan

US

15 weeks

166

Cubillos, Chieffo, and Fan (2007) Kinginger (2008)

US

Spain and Costa Rica

5 weeks

48 abroad, 92 at home

US

France

1 semester

23

Educational Testing Service Japanese Proficiency Test French Listening Proficiency Test Test of English as a Foreign Language Spanish Advanced Placement Test Test de Français International

students in France to rate the frequency of certain French-mediated activities, such as talk at meals or service encounters, and also to judge these activities in terms of their difficulty and the satisfaction associated with them. One of Kaplan’s claims was that there is a serious mismatch between the functions stressed in language pedagogy and the realities of study abroad. In particular, the comprehension skills traditionally neglected in the classroom were found to be of ‘far greater importance than students might have expected’ (1986: 297). Kaplan’s participants emphasized the value of opportunities to hear French in a variety of settings, in the media, in the classroom, at mealtime and elsewhere, and in fact claimed that comprehension, in both reading and listening, was the domain in which they made the most progress. Most of the studies attempting to document improvement in listening comprehension ability have in fact succeeded. Huebner (1995) administered the Educational Testing Service’s (ETS) Japanese Proficiency Test to a group of beginning language learner in Japan for a nine-week summer immersion and in a domestic immersion program of parallel length

60


and pedagogical content. On the listening section of the test, the study abroad group performed slightly better than the immersion students, although the sample size was small and these results were not statistically significant. Allen and Herron (2003) designed their own multiple choice listening comprehension test based on video clips from a French television show, and administered this test in a pre-post design to a group of American students in France for six weeks. In this case, results of the post-test were significantly higher than the pre-test scores. Similar results emerged from my own project (Kinginger 2008), involving a group of American students in France for one academic term. Before and after their sojourn, these students took the Test de Français International, a standardized examination administered by the Educational Testing Service and consisting of a reading and a listening section. Posttest scores were significantly higher on both sections, with a more robust finding for the listening section. In a project involving Japanese learners studying in the United States, Tanaka and Ellis (2003) reported minor gains on the Listening sub-section of the TOEFL. Cubillos, Chieffo, and Fan (2007) compared performance on the listening portion of the College Board Spanish Advanced Placement Test by groups of American learners of Spanish on short-term (five-week) programs in Spain and Costa Rica, and by students enrolled in a course of the same length in the United States. No significant differences between the groups were observed. However, in analyzing participants’ self-assessment of comprehension strategies, the authors claimed that the students abroad approached their task in ways different from those of their peers at home. ‘Somewhat surprising’ (2007: 173) is the observation that from the beginning students choosing to pursue foreign language competence abroad employed sophisticated, social, and topdown strategies associated with successful learning. That is, they would attempt to grasp the overall meaning of the texts they heard, or would appeal for assistance from others when required. Their counterparts at home tended to rely instead on bottom-up and occasionally frustrating strategies such as attempting to identify grammatical structures and the meanings of individual words. Cubillos, Chieffo, and Fan therefore cast their lackluster findings in a positive light by claiming that study abroad promotes or reinforces strategies believed to foster learning at the levels beyond the most basic. As in the case of speaking proficiency testing, listening comprehension research presents issues of ecological validity. In every case, the construct of listening comprehension is operationalized via multiplechoice tests, and in all but one of these tests are standard examinations


designed to assess the varieties of language and content domains valued in academic or professional settings. That is, students are tested on their ability to carry out academic tasks using standard language normally characterized by formal register. Reading these studies on the backdrop of Kaplan’s observations (1986) about the significance of everyday and informal language in study abroad, it is legitimate to question whether or not these tests truly represent the language that students have learned. Findings of modest or no gains may be attributable in part to a mismatch between the qualities of experience and the subsequent test, both for individual students and for the groups under investigation. Despite this rather serious limitation, most of the studies do provide results confirming students’ own perception that study abroad is a productive context for developing listening comprehension ability. The exception is the case presented by Cubillos, Chieffo, and Fan (2007), where the period of study abroad was limited to five weeks. As the authors argue, it is worthwhile to interrogate the outcomes of such programs, since they represent a growing proportion of American participation in study abroad. However, since the study offered no information about the qualities of students’ engagement in Spanishmediated activities and little insight on their identities or histories, it is difficult to ascertain the extent to which study abroad really functioned as a language-learning environment in this case.

Reading and writing Competence in reading and writing, as previously noted, is remarkably under-represented in the applied linguistics literature related to study abroad. Most contemporary scholars concur that learning to read and write abroad not only tests students’ linguistic and pragmatic skills (e.g., at word decoding or identifying textual genre) but also confronts them with the need to negotiate new academic cultures and to adapt to new forms of literacy (Mauranen 1994; Kline 1998). Academic literacy abroad poses ‘challenging cross-linguistic and cross-cultural questions’ (Taillefer 2005: 521), since development in this domain is as much a question of socialization as it is of language acquisition (Kern 2003). Foreign language literacy socialization is a compelling topic, to which we shall return in Chapter 4. Here we examine the rare studies explicitly focused on the reading and writing skills emerging from student sojourns abroad. These studies include seven projects reporting results on reading ability and two studies examining writing ability (see Table 2.4).

62

Table 2.4 Assessment of reading and writing Study

Origin

Destination

Sojourn length

Participants

Instrument

Brecht, Davidson, and Ginsburg (1995)

US

Russia

1 semester

658

Huebner (1995)

US

Japan

9 weeks


Lapkin, Hart, and Swain (1995) Hayden (1998)

Quebec

3 months

89

China

1 semester

21

Dewey (2004)

Anglophone Canada Europe and North America US

Japan


Sasaki (2004)

Japan

11 weeks (study abroad), 9 weeks (immersion) 2–8 months

6 abroad, 5 at home

Iwasaki (2007)

US

1 year

4

Sasaki (2007)

Japan

4–9 months

7 abroad, 6 at home

Kinginger (2008)

US

1 semester

23

Educational Testing Service Listening and Reading Exams Educational Testing Service Japanese Proficiency Test Language Test Package for Core French Computer-Adaptive Test for Reading Chinese Free-recall protocols, Vocabulary knowledge, Self-assessment English composition quality/fluency Educational Testing Service Japanese Proficiency Test English composition quality/fluency Test de Français International

Canada or US Japan

Canada or US France


Four studies have focused on assessment of reading proficiency, often within broader research agendas, and all of these show that study abroad has a positive impact. Brecht, Davidson, and Ginsburg (1995) reported that students of Russian made significant gains in reading ability while abroad, and also that reading proficiency was an important predictor of gain in other domains (speaking and listening). Similarly, Lapkin, Hart, and Swain (1995) found that Anglophone students participating in a Canadian interprovincial exchange in Quebec improved their scores on a test of French-reading proficiency. As noted previously, American participants in Kinginger’s (2008) study also recorded significantly higher scores on the reading component of the Test de Français International after their sojourn in France. Hayden (1998) conducted a study of reading development in Chinese by European and North American students on a semester-long program in Beijing. Using the ComputerAdaptive Test for Reading Chinese (based on the ACTFL Guidelines), Hayden found that 14 of 21 participants registered higher scores in the post-test. Iwasaki (2007) documented impressive gains on the ETS Japanese Proficiency Test (Character/ Vocabulary, Reading/Grammar) for four American students after a year in Japan. In the case of reading in ‘orthographically complex Asian languages’ (Dewey 2007: 74), the results of research suggest that English-speaking study abroad participants may experience ‘the pang of illiteracy’ more intensely than do students of French or German (Librande 1998: 184) and that sudden loss of the ability to read can intensify desire for upgraded skills. The beginning students participating in Huebner’s (1995) study exhibited greater (though non-significant) gain scores on the reading component of the Japanese Proficiency Test than did their peers in a domestic immersion program. Huebner linked this result to the students’ journals and reactions to instruction. In the domestic program, the students found the introduction of Katakana and Hiragana writing systems in the first week, and Kanji in the second week, to be ‘unreasonable’ (1995: 185), preferring the Romanized instructional system of their textbook, a system used nowhere in Japan. Students abroad greeted this information with enthusiasm; having abruptly become functionally illiterate in their new environment, some among them ‘had a more urgent need to be literate in Japanese’ (1995: 185) and began to deliberately develop their reading ability through exposure to everyday print media within the linguistic landscape. Dewey (2004) compared development of reading proficiency and subjective responses to reading in Japanese among three groups in different learning environments: SA, IM, and AH. Compared with traditional

64


classroom learners the study abroad group proved better able to comprehend and recall texts, better able to define written words, and more confident as readers. When comparing the domestic immersion students to their counterparts abroad, however, the only advantage accruing to the study abroad students was in their confidence. Dewey notes that the domestic immersion program offered considerable informal and personal access to instruction during which the students could test their reading acumen, but that the study abroad program provided a much broader variety of Japanese-mediated activities than did either of the domestic options. Writing development in study abroad has been examined by Freed, So, and Lazar (2003), and in a more recent pair of longitudinal studies in EFL contexts (Sasaki 2004; 2007). To recall, in the former study, native-speaking judges assigned superiority to the at-home classroom in fostering written fluency, but the study abroad participants were more ambitious in writing than the classroom students. Sasaki (2004) followed a small group of Japanese students majoring in British and American studies throughout their undergraduate careers to document their development as English-language writers. Of the 11 participants, six elected to study abroad in the United States or Canada, thus affording an opportunity to compare the two groups. Combining quantitative and qualitative assessments of writing ability, Sasaki showed that both groups developed the quality of their argumentative compositions and their fluency as writers (measured on site as total number of words and words per minute). However, the planning process evolved more for the study abroad group, and the members of this group were also far more likely than the classroom learners to express their ideas directly in English, without translating from Japanese, or to consider how to enrich the content of their writing while their compositions were underway. In a confirmatory study based on hypotheses emerging from the earlier work, Sasaki (2007) once again compared students abroad with their peers at home. The researcher once again measured general proficiency, essay quality (content, organization, vocabulary, language use, and mechanics), and fluency (words written and words per minute). Additionally, Sasaki collected retrospective accounts of the writing process through stimulated recall based on videotapes of the students as they composed, and interviewed the students about changes in their writing strategies. While both groups improved their overall proficiency, in this case, only the study abroad students showed enhanced writing ability and fluency. Also, the study abroad group became more motivated to


write well in English, whereas the students remaining at home did not. This motivation is reflected in the rationales underlying strategy use; for example, although there was no difference in the amount of translation from Japanese, some study abroad participants claimed to use this strategy in a specific effort to refine their composition. Sasaki (2007) concluded by noting the dilemmas faced by Japanese learners of English, as outlined in Chapter 1. If the primary concern is with achieving significant progress in L2 writing, then study abroad should be recommended for this entire population. However, in this case the participants were abroad during their third or fourth years of study, the crucial phase for seeking employment. While the study abroad group was enhancing language skills that may or may not prove relevant in their careers, the group at home may have been more successful in securing jobs, a process normally completed by the middle of the fourth year. A late start at job hunting can be ‘a devastating handicap in Japan’ (2007: 615). If the students at home became less-motivated learners of English, the waning of their enthusiasm can be attributed in part to their socialization into the L1 community. Overall, the scant literature in this domain offers some support for the claim that study abroad enhances writing proficiency and performance on tests of reading comprehension. Moreover, in some cases the perceived relevance of foreign language literacy tends to grow, and this perception alters the approaches that students adopt in their daily reading practices and approaches to academic writing. On the other hand, student responses are not uniform, and some students appear to reap greater rewards than do others. Both Huebner (1995) and Dewey (2004) pointed out that their findings mirror other comparative investigations of language learning in study abroad where individual differences in outcome are highlighted. Referring to student journals, Huebner noted that the participants in his study did not all react to their sudden illiteracy in the same way. Some students seemed to thrive whereas others expressed frustration in being surrounded by ‘indecipherable’ (1995: 186) writing. Among Hayden’s (1998) participants were five who showed no gain and two whose performance declined. Similarly, in my own study (Kinginger 2008) there were several students who, over the course of their time abroad, appeared to have lost some portion of their ability to succeed on a standard test of reading. In Sasaki’s (2007) study, two of the seven study abroad participants did not improve their writing quality scores. As Sasaki’s interpretation illustrates, a broader lens may be required in order to understand these findings, one that takes into consideration the societal role of reading and writing competence, the

66


literacy activities of students abroad and the significance of literacy in students’ lives.

Summary and conclusion The measurement of language-related outcomes appears, on the surface, to have yielded a fairly consistent picture in which study abroad is a productive environment for language learning. Beginning with Carroll’s (1967) assertion that time abroad is a major predictor of language ability, researchers have documented gain in all modalities of language use. Efforts to show that study abroad enhances general speaking proficiency, although plagued by the imprecision of the OPI scale, succeeded in the case of a relatively large-scale study (Brecht, Davidson, and Ginsburg 1995). Parallel projects in Europe (Coleman 1996; Rees and Klapper 2007) also attribute growth in overall proficiency to study abroad. Attempts to substantiate claims about the development of fluency, although based entirely on monologic, laboratory-like tasks, indicate that study abroad participants generally speak more quickly and with less hesitation than their counterparts at home, and that advanced learners appropriate specific, fluency-enhancing features of spoken language grammar and style. Most test-based investigations of comprehension abilities show gains for students abroad, and Sasaki (2007) illustrated important changes in students’ ability to efficiently compose argumentative essays. Even when improvement is not documented using the available assessment methods, scholars argue that study abroad prompts changes in students’ dispositions toward language learning, boosting their communicative ambition in speaking and writing tasks, attracting their attention to features of the linguistic landscape affording reading practice, reworking their approach to listening in the direction of meaning-oriented strategies, or altering the motives underlying such strategies. Yet, experts on quantitative assessment and experimental research design do not necessarily agree that the linguistic benefits of study abroad have already been proven. A review of methodologies in study abroad research based on holistic constructs prompted Rees and Klapper (2008: 102) to declare that scholarship in this area is ‘embryonic and underdeveloped.’ They noted in particular the general paucity of investigations and the small scale of most study abroad research. The research base is small, and many of the studies reviewed in this chapter involved few participants, typically a number of volunteers from a particular university’s cohort. Rees and Klapper also critiqued several facets of design


in study abroad research. Negative appraisal of quantitative research on learning outcomes has focused on the lack of a control group in many quasi-experimental research designs, leading to poorly supported claims about capabilities of study abroad participants versus classroom learners (e.g., Freed 1995a). However, even when control groups are present there is insufficient consideration given to matching the academic and affective profiles of the participants whose performance is compared. This issue leaks into the interpretation of studies like Cubillos, Chieffo, and Fan (2007) or Sasaki (2007), where students who chose to pursue language competence abroad clearly presented or developed different stances toward this pursuit than do those who remained at home. Although it may not be possible, given these conditions, to secure genuine control groups, Rees and Klapper lamented the inadequate basis for comparison in most comparative studies. Finally, these authors pointed out that many quantitative investigations exhibit weaknesses in statistical methods. Some studies fail to address the reliability of testing instruments or to calibrate these tests in order to avoid ceiling effects, and others produce overgenerous significance values based on inappropriate choice of statistical procedure (e.g., use of Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) in the case of repeated measures). While Rees and Klapper (2008: 98) legitimately called for attention to the ‘psychometric pedigree,’ or the proven validity and reliability of tests assessing holistic language skills, a broader question concerns the extent to which current standard definitions of language proficiency, as operationalized in widely distributed tests, reflect academic norms versus the realities of natural language use and learning in all modes of communication, but particularly in speaking, the focus of greatest interest among students and researchers. ‘Proficiency’ may not be best represented as an implicational scale, but may instead be composed of unique, individual repertoires. As the research of Towell, Hawkins, and Bazergui (1996) demonstrated, students abroad may appropriate perfectly legitimate varieties or styles of speech that are not necessarily enshrined as correct in grammars based on written language. Until such time as tests based on empirical study of everyday, informal talk in a variety of languages become available, and until we know more about the language-related activities of study abroad participants, there will always be questions about the ecological validity of research in this domain. The measurement of outcomes for study abroad is ‘caught between a rock and a soft place’ where ‘the rock is rigor and the soft place relevance’ (Bronfenbrenner 1979: 18). Emphasis on rigor may motivate

68


elegance in design, but the studies often call for short-term observation of unusual behaviors, such as filling in blanks or telling a story to a machine, that are not generalizable to other settings. Similarly, in research attempting a maximum level of generalization to whole populations, a recurrent finding is of striking individual differences whose explanation offers only tantalizing glimpses into the nature of study abroad experiences and the motives of the people involved. It is this dilemma that has inspired the qualitative approaches to language learning abroad examined in Chapters 4 and 5. Meanwhile, neither the subjective judgment of the so-called native speakers nor construct-based language tests, such as the OPI, the C-Test, nor any of the standard measures of comprehension or writing quality necessarily capture the subtle changes occurring as language learners abroad enlarge their communicative repertoires. A purely utilitarian approach to the quantification of products begins to encounter its limits when researchers struggle to portray the development they have observed with instruments that do not measure it. For this reason, study abroad research on language acquisition includes a significant number of studies examining discrete areas of language proficiency, to be reviewed in Chapter 3.

3 Domains of Communicative Competence

In Entre les murs (The Class) (2006), inspiring the film by the same title (Cantet 2008), author François Bégaudeau recounts his everyday experience of teaching in a tough, largely immigrant-populated Parisian neighborhood. Bégaudeau’s students face problems of poverty, violence, and cultural isolation. His Chinese student Wei struggles to learn French while coping with the threat of his mother’s deportation. Souleymane, an immigrant from Mali, plays out his identity confusion through self-destructive rebellion, and is ultimately expelled from school. Since Bégaudeau is a French teacher, the locus of his struggle to assist these students is the language, and particularly the grammar and style of proper, literate French. To the extent that they have in fact learned French, their language use betrays them, marking working-class origins, particularly because they rely on the norms appropriate for informal speech even when they write. In advance of a major gate-keeping test that will determine his students’ access to future schooling, Bégaudeau harangues them on the importance of avoiding spoken forms in writing: Bon, je reviens un peu sur l’oralité, je rappelle que c’est pas parce qu’on vous demande d’écrire un dialogue qu’il faut écrire comme on parle, vous voyez? D’ailleurs, on arrive jamais à écrire comme on parle, c’est impossible, tout ce qu’on peut faire c’est donner une impression d’oralité, c’est tout, alors on évite de commencer les phrases par ‘franchement,’ on évite de dire ‘on’ pour ‘nous,’ on évite d’utiliser ‘sérieux’ comme adverbe, comme vous faites en permanence à l’oral. (Bégaudeau 2006: 257) So, let’s go back a little bit to spoken language, let me remind you that even if they ask you to write a dialogue you shouldn’t write like 69

70


you talk, do you see? Moreover, we never manage to write like we speak, it’s impossible, all we can do is give an impression of orality, that’s all, so we avoid starting sentences with ‘franchement,’ we avoid using ‘on’ for ‘nous,’ we avoid using ‘sérieux’ as an adverb, they way you constantly do when you are talking. (My translation) The author conveys both the urgency of his message and the contradictions inherent in his mission to expand and reshape his students’ literacy while reaching out to them through the use of the same oral forms he is called upon to condemn. Bégaudeau’s job is to work on his students’ communicative competence, teaching them to use literate and refined styles appropriate for instructional settings. Communicative competence is the parent construct of proficiency. Since the latter third of the 20th century, and particularly in places and at times when the functional value of language ability is highlighted, educators have generally concurred that language ability should be defined in terms of communicative competence, or the ability to express, interpret, and negotiate meaning (Savignon 1983). This concept, traced to the writings of anthropologist Dell Hymes (e.g., 1984), conveys the breadth of abilities, beyond knowledge of language forms, required for successful communication. Definitions of communicative competence normally include reference to appropriate language use, that is, the ability to match language forms to their social contexts in ways that do not unintentionally violate expectations. For Bégaudeau’s students the immediate challenge is to appropriate formal registers of written French. Many study abroad participants face the opposite problem; when their access to the language has been restricted to classrooms and to prepared texts, they need to expand their repertoire of spoken language in order to interact appropriately within informal settings. Pedagogical models of communicative competence normally differentiate between knowledge about language, the focus of traditional classroom learning, and ability to engage in purposeful language use. These models portray communicative competence as a number of interrelated yet separately conceived abilities. In the most recent mainstream version (Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei, and Thurell 1995) discourse competence is at the core, and consists of linguistic resources to create and interpret texts, that is, coherent and cohesive language in use (including all modes of communication such as speaking, writing, or texting). Three additional components influence and are influenced by discourse competence: (1) linguistic competence, or the ability to manipulate the formal features of language, including vocabulary, syntax, morphology,

Domains of Communicative Competence

71

phonology, and orthography; (2) actional competence, or the ability to interpret and produce speech acts (apologizing, requesting, promising, etc.); and (3) sociocultural competence, comprising knowledge of the rules and expectations governing the social contexts of language use, and including knowledge of politeness conventions, speech styles, and register. A fifth component, strategic competence, supports all the others, and consists of knowledge and skill needed to resolve communication difficulties and enhance both learning and communication. As a model for language learning, communicative competence was popularized in the 1970s and 1980s, during the height of political and educational enthusiasm for functionalism in language teaching. Hymes’ reflections on communicative competence had been intended to inspire research in the ethnography of communication, offering holistic, yet detailed analysis of language use in diverse settings. Whether or not the relevant, model speech communities can be easily identified, and before many of these norms were actually described, the construct was abstracted away from its scholarly origins to serve language education (Leung 2005). Because it bears the mark of its utilitarian roots, and because under its banner language learners have been enjoined to emulate the idealized competence of monolingual native speakers, the universal relevance of the model is now widely contested. Kramsch (2006b), for example, argues for recognition of the symbolic power inherent in the negotiation of meaning, and both Cook (1995) and Leung (2005) contend that models for language learners should hold up successful multilingualism as the ideal. Various authors have justly criticized the model’s unexamined, thus politically suspect, definitions of appropriate language behavior (Fairclough 1992) or its overemphasis on individual effectiveness over intercultural awareness and the dialogic qualities of communication (Byram 1997; Zarate 2003). Nonetheless, variations on the theme of communicative competence have guided many projects in applied linguistics over the past several decades, and this model provides a convenient heuristic for organizing a review of studies narrowing their perspective to particular aspects of language. Although it is not always certain, for example, that a given study should be considered most relevant to discourse competence rather than to actional or sociocultural competence, this chapter considers how study abroad researchers treat each component of communicative competence in turn. This research is often framed in relation to the broader field of SLA, a field in search of universal and context-independent psycholinguistic processes (Ellis 2000; Gass and Selinker 2001). Within SLA, study abroad is assumed to resemble an experimental treatment,

72


providing ‘high quality, contextualized exposure’ to language (Isabelli 2007: 333) that may alter the route or accelerate the rate of development in a range of ways. Only rarely is the nature of this exposure scrutinized. Scholars examining linguistic competence have focused on study abroad participants’ ability to use second-language grammar, lexis, phonology and morphology. More recently, actional competence has become a popular focus of study abroad research, examining students’ ability to do things with words as they perform or comprehend speech acts. Discourse competence is at the core of the model, serving to ground the conceptualization of the other components in relation to meaning and coherence, and therefore cannot be easily abstracted from the whole. However, several studies have examined study abroad participants’ discourse competence in specific areas such as deixis and conversational structure. Research on sociocultural competence offers insight into the ways in which study abroad enhances students’ ability to manipulate sociolinguistic variation. Investigations of strategic competence scrutinize how students learn to compensate for lacunae in the other areas of language ability, how they resolve problems arising in interaction, and how they organize learning activity. Although the great majority of these projects retain a utilitarian flavor in their focus on concrete products, they also raise questions about language-learning processes in study abroad and about the nature of communicative competence itself.

Linguistic competence Linguistic competence involves the basic formal elements of language, including sentence or utterance patterns and types, morphology, vocabulary, and phonology/orthography (Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei, and Thurell 1995). With few exceptions (e.g., Rees and Klapper 2007), contemporary studies of linguistic competence, particularly in the area of morphology and syntax, are less concerned with knowledge about language than with functional abilities to use it. Scholars have looked to study abroad as a context for the development of grammatical and lexical abilities and, to a lesser extent, phonology. In the area of grammatical competence particularly, these studies have produced mixed results, leading some to suggest that ‘there is cause to doubt that SA [study abroad] leads to significant grammatical gains’ (Collentine 2004: 228). Under the influence of SLA, a field primarily devoted to exploring the development of linguistic competence, some scholars interested in grammatical competence (see Table 3.1) view context as incidental to

Table 3.1 Assessment of grammatical competence Study

Origin

Destination

Sojourn length

Participants

Instrument(s)/data

DeKeyser (1991)

US

Spain

6 months (abroad), 1 semester (at home)

7 abroad, 5 at home

Ryan and Lafford (1992) Walsh (1994) Guntermann (1995)

US

Spain

1 semester

16

Interviews, picture descriptions, grammar test OPI

Ireland US

Germany Central America

15 9

Interviews OPI

Collentine (2004)

US

Spain

8–12 months 8–10 weeks training, 1 year Peace Corps service 1 semester

OPI

Howard (2005)

Ireland

France

1 year


Isabelli and Nishida (2005) Howard (2006)

US

Spain

1 year

Ireland

France

1 year


McMeekin (2006)

US

Japan

8 weeks

5

Isabelli (2007)

US

Hispanophone countries

1 semester–18 months

24 abroad, 19 at home

Sociolinguistic interviews SOPI Sociolinguistic interviews Videotaped interactions SOPI-type questions

73

74


the unfolding of universal and/or computational psycholinguistic processes. Research involving study abroad has often been driven by major theoretical stances within SLA, including theories about immutable stages in the acquisition of certain formal features of second languages (e.g., VanPatten 1985b), hypotheses regarding the role of Universal Grammar in second-language development (e.g., White 1989) or approaches interpreting the mind as analogous to a computational device, receiving linguistic input tailored for acquisition through interaction (e.g., Long 1981). Thus, investigators have entered the arena of study abroad research without necessarily taking an interest in the nature of study abroad, at least initially, except to the extent that it ostensibly upgrades the quality and amount of exposure to language. In addition to Freed’s studies based on native speaker assessment of fluency (Freed 1995b; Freed, So, and Lazar 2003), reviewed in Chapter 2, several investigations have shown little or no development of grammatical competence in study abroad. One commonly cited study is DeKeyser (1991), a project comparing small groups of US-based students of Spanish at home (N = 5) and abroad (N = 7). DeKeyser explored differences between the groups in monitoring for grammatical accuracy in interviews and picture descriptions. No difference between the groups was recorded, as none of the students possessed the relevant grammatical knowledge for monitoring their output in the areas under consideration (the subjunctive, the conditional and relative clauses) and they displayed their knowledge of the Spanish copula (ser versus estar, a notoriously difficult aspect of Spanish grammar for Anglophones) in similar ways. Similarly, Walsh (1994) reported the findings of a study involving Irish students of German interviewed at three intervals over the course of their year abroad. Analysis of the interview performances prompted the author to claim that students returned ‘having progressed largely in the area of fluency and lexis but only marginally in the area of grammatical accuracy’ (1994: 48). A typical student in this cohort manifested improved speed of delivery and a new repertoire of communication strategies, but these seemed to distract from grammatical and syntactic deficiencies, yielding ‘fluent ungrammaticality’ (1994: 52). Collentine (2004) combined a focus on grammatical and lexical development in US-based students of Spanish at home and abroad. A corpus was constructed from Oral Proficiency Interviews with 20 classroom learners and 26 participants in a program in Spain. These data were coded for accuracy in 17 morphological, syntactic, and


75

morpho-syntactic categories (e.g., copula accuracy, preposition accuracy, object-pronoun accuracy) and the researcher computed the frequency with which learners generated unique words within seven lexical categories (adjectives, adverbs, conjunctions, nouns, prepositions, pronouns, and verbs). Results indicated that the study abroad experience did not produce overall increases in grammatical abilities, and that, in fact, it was the stay-at-home group whose grammatical accuracy increased on the five accuracy types that most distinguished between the groups (copula, present tense verbs, indicative verbs, subordinateconjunction accuracy, and subordinate-clause count). These are areas, namely verbs and subordinate conjunctions, typically emphasized in language pedagogy. In the area of lexical development the study generated similar results, showing that the ‘at home’ group appeared to have acquired more unique lexical items than the study abroad group. Collentine then calculated a narrative score for each of the groups based on the frequently occurring grammatical features of narrative discourse (past-tense verbs, third-person morphology, past and present participles, and public verbs of communication and events). This analysis demonstrated that the study abroad group produced more of the features associated with narrative than did the classroom learners. Having scaled the data for this purpose, the author also applied a measure of informational richness, concluding once again that the discourse produced by the classroom students was more semantically dense than that of the study abroad participants. Thus, students abroad may in fact develop repertoires different from those of classroom learners, based, for example, on experience of interactive story telling, but traditional measures of grammatical accuracy do not necessarily capture the changes taking place when language learners emerge from the classroom. Collentine recommended that future researchers rely more on research in discourse and corpus analysis, where scholars are ‘beginning to uncover metrics for characterizing discursive levels of representation that combine grammatical and lexical features’ (2004: 245). By contrast, studies pinpointing the development of particular grammatical features offer a somewhat rosier outlook. As Howard remarks (2005: 7), ‘it might be hypothesized that grammatical development may be more accelerated on certain components of the learner’s grammatical competence, rather than being equally evident across the learner’s grammatical competence as a general entity.’ Two studies examined the order of acquisition of certain grammatical features of Spanish. Guntermann

76


(1995) scrutinized Oral Proficiency Interviews with Peace Corps volunteers in Central America for three grammatical features: the copulas ser and estar, the prepositions por and para, and past tense and aspect. After one year, these participants increased the accuracy of their use of the copulas and of the preterit and imperfect. In another such study, Ryan and Lafford (1992) investigated whether the study abroad environment would alter a hypothetical developmental sequence for the acquisition of ser and estar based on observation of classroom learners. The authors concluded that the developmental sequence is the same in both contexts, and that students abroad did in fact gain in their abilities in this domain. These studies point to links between grammatical and lexical development, since the student’s repertoires included both formulaic chunks (e.g., por ejemplo) and lexico-grammatical syntagmas (e.g., ser + adjective, estar + preposition) (Collentine 2004). The research program of Isabelli (Isabelli and Nishida 2005; Isabelli 2007) exemplifies investigation guided by the Universal Grammar framework. Under this framework, inspired by Chomsky’s distinction between underlying competence and surface-level performance, it is assumed that all languages share certain abstract principles of grammar, and that these are innate to humans. Language learning is grammar building (Schwartz 1993), and depends upon access to Universal Grammar, learning procedure, and linguistic input (Isabelli 2007). For SLA, a key question is the extent to which the principles of Universal Grammar remain accessible in learning languages beyond the first. The debate centers around two positions and their consequences for learning procedure. One of these stances is that first- and second-language acquisition are in essence the same process, and that only positive evidence in the input is necessary for grammar building. The second holds that in SLA access to Universal Grammar is indirect, and that learners therefore need negative evidence (i.e., correction) and explicit positive evidence (i.e., instruction) in order to build grammars. One purpose of Isabelli’s forays into the domain of study abroad is to contribute to this debate about the role of Univeral Grammar and its implications for the design and use of learning environments. Isabelli and Nishida (2005) investigated the acquisition of the subjunctive in Spanish for a cohort of US-based students after nine months of experience abroad. The study involved Simulated Oral Proficiency Interviews, or SOPIs (an audiotaped and standardized version of the face-to-face procedure), and revealed that in comparison to their peers at home the study abroad group produced more subjunctive-related structures and more actual forms of the subjunctive. That is, they produced more


77

complex syntactic structures, since the subjunctive normally appears in subordinate clauses. However, the rate at which they produced forms of the subjunctive within relevant structures was only 33 percent. Thus study abroad, with its abundance of positive input, does not lead to ‘a clear notion of what the subjunctive morpohology semantically represents’ (Isabelli 2007: 332) but it provides a degree of readiness and ‘linguistic maturity’ (2007: 336) needed to understand complex syntax. A follow-up study investigated whether or not former study abroad participants would prove more amenable to instruction than classroom learners (2007). In fact, the second study, once again based on relatively spontaneous linguistic production in the SOPI, documented a distinct advantage for those students who had studied abroad, confirming the author’s hypothesis that indirect access to Universal Grammar characterizes second-language learning and the need for a judicious combination of positive evidence and explicit instruction. Another approach to the refinement of research constructs is illustrated in the work of Howard (2001; 2005) on the development of abilities to mark past tense and aspect in advanced learners of French. Speaking accurately about the past presents considerable difficulties for Anglophones, since this feature of French grammar requires skilled use of complex morphology and awareness of concepts underlying perfective versus imperfective aspect. Howard’s (2005) project was based on a corpus of sociolinguistic interviews conducted within a cross-sectional design and involving three groups of Irish participants: second-year students, third-year instructed learners, and students having spent their third year of college in France. This design allowed Howard to describe the commonalities and differences in past time marking between and among the groups. Howard (2005) confirms that the process of mastering appropriate use of these forms is complex and gradual. All three of the groups relied on temporal adverbs and verbs in the present to mark past tense, failed to supply the pluperfect in cases where it would be expected, and used the passé composé (perfective marker) in expression of habituality where the imparfait (imperfective marker) is required. When analyzed from a lexical perspective, Howard’s data showed that the students systematically applied the imparfait to a limited number of verbs, and the passé composé to a larger, different group of verbs. That is, they restricted their usage of particular lexical verbs to one past time marker but not both. In comparing the performance of the study abroad group to the others, however, several differences emerged. The study abroad participants used more past tense forms, matched these forms more successfully to

78


their functional context, and extended past time marking to a wider range of lexical verbs. They relied less on temporal adverbs, and thus made more autonomous uses of past time marking. Moreover, their use of the imparfait to mark habituality and progressivity, a function posing considerable difficulty to instructed learners, reached a rate of 67 percent (as compared to 25 percent for the second-year students, and 48 percent for the third year classroom group). Thus it would appear that while study abroad participants do not fully acquire the French aspectual system, they increase their range of appropriate use (see also Duperron 2006). A companion project focusing on the expression of person and number in verb morphology, Howard (2006), showed that the marking of plurality in third-person contexts was especially challenging for all the students, but that the study abroad participants best approximated native-speaker norms in this area as well. Conditions for the development of grammatical competence are explored in McMeekin’s (2006) examination of ‘negotiation’ in a Japanese study abroad setting. This study is grounded in the Input– Interaction–Output framework for SLA (Block 2003), based originally on Krashen’s Monitor Model (1982), in which the provision of comprehensible input drives an essentially computational process of language acquisition. Subsequent revisions and refinements of the framework emphasize ‘negotiation of meaning,’ or ‘the modification and restructuring of interaction that occurs when learners and their interlocutors anticipate, perceive, or experience difficulties in message comprehension’ (Pica 1994: 494, cited in McMeekin 2006: 180). Negotiation is assumed to play three roles in furthering language acquisition: (1) making input comprehensible; (2) encouraging learners to modify their output; and (3) focusing learners’ attention on form through positive and negative evidence. McMeekin videotaped five US-based learners in both homestay and classroom settings, then scrutinized the amount and quality of negotiated interactions. The quantitative data show that negotiation was far more frequent in the homestay than in the classroom. Host families clarified their utterances, thus providing ostensibly comprehensible input, more than teachers. However, students did not modify their own utterances as much in the host family setting as they did in the classroom. The host families in McMeekin’s study went to great lengths to explain their utterances to students through repetition, reformulation, explanation and circumlocution. In the following interaction, for example, Mandy receives clarification of the word utsutte iru (to be filming) from her host parents:

Domains of Communicative Competence 1.

F:

2. Ma: 3.

F:

4. Ma: 5.

F:

6. M: 7. Ma: 8.

F:

9. M:

79

mandy utsutte ru kana I wonder if Mandy is being filmed. nani? what? utsutte ru kana? Is she being filmed? utsu-? film-? kore [kore bideo kamera ni utsutte imasu [ka ((points to camera)) this [this are you being filmed by the camera [utsutte ru wa [kochigawa kara yoku utsutte iru [it’s filming [it’s filming well from this side utsutsu wakarimasen donna imi desu ka I don’t understand utsutsu what does it mean? utsuru it’s utsuru bideo ni utsuru utsuru to be filmed by a camera (McMeekin 2006: 189–190)

McMeekin’s data illustrate the process by which everyday interaction in host family settings can be construed as a series of language lessons with ongoing explicit focus on form (see also Chapter 5). Although McMeekin does not document the growth of grammatical competence for her participants, the study offers insight into the potential of home-based interactions to broaden grammatical and lexical repertoires. In addition to studies of grammatical competence, the literature includes two major investigations of vocabulary development in study abroad. The findings of Milton and Meara (1995) and of Ife, Vives Boix, and Meara (2000) indicate that study abroad participants develop more expansive lexical repertoires than do purely instructed learners, and that their lexicons tend to be organized in a more native-like way. Using the Eurocentres Vocabulary Size Test, Milton and Meara produced estimates of vocabulary size in 53 European exchange participants studying in Britain. The group as a whole showed a remarkable improvement in scores, with some students more than doubling their initial vocabularies. The average growth rate during study abroad was about four times as fast as the growth rate at home. However, these results masked significant individual differences; one student’s score remained unchanged, and five students registered lower scores on the final test than on the entry test. Part of this variation can be attributed to the tendency for

80


students with smaller initial vocabularies to make the greatest gain, and for students with large vocabularies to register less-significant gain scores. The authors also consulted the results of a questionnaire detailing students’ activities while on the exchange. To their surprise, these findings showed that time spent in both formal and informal study (‘locking yourself away in a library,’ 2000: 32) correlated negatively with vocabulary growth. Although friendship patterns did not appear to affect gains in vocabulary, the authors report that the participants adopted an expatriate lifestyle, mixing with other exchange students and only rarely with locals. Subsequently, Ife, Vives Boix, and Meara (2000) acknowledged a possible ceiling effect for the Vocabulary Size Test, limiting the documentation of growth for advanced students. In its place, they proposed the A3VT (three word association test) permitting assessment of lexical organization. This move was warranted by the authors’ view that increased proficiency would promote ‘greater depth and greater interconnection between lexical items so that the learner’s lexicon resembles more closely that of a native speaker’ (2000: 59–60). In the A3VT, students are presented with sets of three words, where two of the words have been identified by natives as strongly associated with each other, while the third word is not associated with the other two. The test taker is instructed to identify the misfit word in each set. Participants in the research were British learners of Spanish of varying initial proficiency levels who were tested before and after a sojourn in Spain using the A3VT and a separate single word translation task. In this case, improvement over time was significant in both tests for all the students, whether they displayed intermediate or advanced initial proficiency. Longer periods abroad yielded higher gains in overall vocabulary and native-like lexical organization, no doubt because added time provides more chances of social integration. A final domain of linguistic competence under consideration in the study abroad literature is phonology, often framed as the extent to which students abroad appropriate native-like pronunciation. In this domain results are mixed, with most studies providing modest support for claims about the benefits of study abroad. Díaz-Campos (2004), for example, set out to investigate consonantal phenomena identified in textbooks as difficult for learners of Spanish (voiceless stops, wordinitial laterals, intervocalic voiced fricatives, and the palatal nasal). He compared the performance of US-based study abroad and classroom students on a reading task targeting these phenomena, and found similar patterns of development in both groups. All of the students made


81

progress in pronouncing voiceless stops and word-initial laterals, no gain was registered for intervocalic voiced fricatives, and the groups had mastered the palatal nasal prior to the pre-test. In a study defining fluency as accurate pronunciation of syllabi nuclei, only two of five participants made appreciable progress while studying in Costa Rica (Simões 1996). In collaboration with the SALA project, Mora (2008) tested the ability of Spanish–Catalan bilinguals based in Barcelona to discriminate between English contrastive sound units and to produce English voiceless oral stops. To recall, the SALA project involved longitudinal data collection over periods of instruction and of study abroad, and over a longer-term of 15 months. Mora’s results show that at home instruction alone significantly improved students’ perceptual phonetic/phonological ability. The ability to produce voiceless stops improved slightly, but not significantly, with study abroad, but these gains were no longer in evidence at the end of the study. On the other hand, Stevens’ (2001) acoustic analysis of pre- and post-test phonetic data from US-based learners of Spanish revealed a significant advantage for study abroad participants over classroom students. Similarly, O’Brien’s (2003) study of second-language German vowels indicated that American students studying in Germany came to perceive and to produce these vowels in native-like ways, as determined via acoustic analysis. Furthermore, native-speaker judges presented with a number of speech samples from the study abroad participants assigned possible nativeness to these speakers, both in the larger study (2003) and in a companion analysis of prosodic features such as rhythm, stress, and intonation (O’Brien 2004). Lord’s (2000) findings suggest that students who receive instruction on issues of pronunciation prior to study abroad make greater gains. In this case, participants who had formally studied Spanish phonology before a sojourn in Mexico attained 28.7 percent accuracy in a problematic area (voiced fricatives) whereas accuracy in the same area among their companions without instruction reached only 5.8 percent. Although it is the most traditional domain of research on developing language ability, scholarship on linguistic competence in study abroad at first glance resembles a hit-or-miss affair or a patchwork of diverse approaches grounded in pedagogical concerns or mainstream approaches to SLA. Concerns with overall accuracy have guided researchers’ unsuccessful attempts to show that study abroad reduces error rates (Walsh 1994) or enhances students’ control of discrete grammatical features (Collentine 2004), and these findings contribute to arguments for a more refined approach to grammar. However, when

82


pinpointing specific aspects of grammatical competence for scrutiny, researchers may miss the mark, choosing features beyond the current reach of their participants (DeKeyser 1991) or acquired prior to the sojourn abroad (Díaz-Campos 2004). The scholarship in this area is fragmented by researchers’ various allegiances to major theoretical stances within SLA where the main concern is not to examine study abroad as a learning context per se, but to defend and illustrate the role of developmental sequences (Ryan and Lafford 1992; Guntermann 1995), Universal Grammar (Isabelli and Nishida 2005; 2007), or input and interaction (McMeekin 2006). In cases where scholars have chosen to examine relevant components of linguistic competence, such as the subjunctive in Spanish (Isabelli and Nishida 2005; Isabelli 2007), past tense and aspect in French (Howard 2001; 2005), or vocabulary size and organization (Milton and Meara 1995; Ife, Vives Boix, and Meara 2000), findings most often confirm the valuable contribution of study abroad in the context of a longer-term learning process. With one exception (the faux-Native Speakers of German in O’Brien 2003), and particularly in the case of short-term programs, study abroad does not appear to be a cure-all for problems of linguistic competence. However, the research does show accelerated development and heightened linguistic sophistication in many, if not all cases. This research points to a crucial role of language instruction both before students’ departure (Lord 2000) and upon their return, when their linguistic maturity has primed them to receive it (Isabelli 2007). Despite the variety of frameworks guiding this research, and its development to date in parallel with trends in SLA, research on linguistic competence in study abroad is, in effect, quite traditional. Regardless of broader theoretical orientations, researchers choose topics already familiar to language pedagogues and known to chart hazardous territory for students. Overall discrete-point accuracy, ser and estar, the passé composé versus the imparfait, or the voiced fricative are standardissue pedagogical problems, belonging among the concerns of classroom learning, with its emphasis on conventional forms. Especially in the area of interactive abilities such as conversation or texting, it is not clear that these are the aspects of linguistic competence most significant in study abroad settings. In the future, study abroad research will need to come to terms with variation in language in general and particularly with nonpedagogic language use, including the interaction of grammar, lexis, and discourse noted in passing by Collentine (2004) and revealed in corpusbased descriptive approaches (e.g., McCarthy 1998). It will also need to


83

address lingua franca communication and the competence of multilingual speakers (Cook 1995; Leung 2005) who do not necessarily aspire to emulate natives. In the meantime, however, study abroad researchers have moved toward a more contextually meaningful approach through investigation of actional competence.

Speech acts A number of researchers have interrogated the abilities of study abroad participants to manipulate speech acts (see Table 3.2), or ‘verbal schemata that carry illocutionary force’ (Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei, and Thurell 1995: 17). This ability is related to actional competence (or the ability to convey and understand communicative intent) and concerns the ways in which language learners ‘do things with words’ (Austin 1975) such as requesting, apologizing, or responding to compliments. At minimum, competence in the use of speech acts requires that students appropriate a range of formulaic sequences and strategies, matching these linguistic forms to situations of use in recognizable ways. They need to know, for example, that I’m sorry or Please forgive me typically correspond to an apology. Further, they need to grasp the subtleties of indirect speech acts in cases where a speaker’s intent can only be inferred from the interaction of linguistic form and context, as for example when speakers of American English show agreement with ‘Is the Pope Catholic?’ (Bouton 1992) or in the following example from Taguchi (2008): John: How was the wedding? Mary: Well . . . the cake was OK. (Taguchi 2008: 68) In terms of speech acts, at least in principle, study abroad offers an important advantage over formal instruction in that students observe a variety of everyday linguistic actions and begin to do socially consequential things with their own words. The relationship between speech acts and their context is not deterministic, and very often the same speech act can be realized directly or indirectly using a variety of forms. In the above example, Mary might just as easily have said, I thought it was gruesome, or Thank God it’s over or I survived, or in fact many other things. Success in speech act realization is difficult to measure in any straightforward way, and depends both on identity-related issues and on the extent to which students opt

84

Table 3.2 Research on speech acts Study

Origin

Destination

Sojourn length

Participants

Focus/instrument

Kondo (1997)

Japan

US

1 year

Apology/DCT

Hoffman-Hicks (1999)

US

France

16 months

48 NS of Japanese, 40 NS of English, 45 abroad 25 NS of French, 10 NS of English, 14 abroad

Matsumura (2001)

Japan

Canada

1 year

102 at home, 97 abroad

Owen (2001) Rodríguez (2001)

US US

Russia Spain

1 semester 1 semester

Barron (2003)

Ireland

Germany

10 months

60 NS of Russian, 42 abroad 14 NS of Spanish, 11 abroad, 11 at home 33

Shardakova (2005)

US

Russia

Varied

Schauer (2006)

Germany UK

1 year

Cohen and Shively (2007)

US

Magnan and Back (2007a) Matsumura (2007)

1 semester

86, randomly assigned to experimental/control groups

US

Spanish- or French-speaking countries France

Greeting – leave taking, compliments/Dialogue construction task Advice/Multiple choice questionnaire Request/OPI role-play Request/Appropriacy judgment task Request, offer, refusal/Free DCT Apology/Dialogue completion questionnaire Pragmatic infelicity/ Video-and-questionnaire, Post-hoc interviews Request, apology/Speech Act Measure of Language Gain

1 semester

6

Request/OPI role-play

Japan

Canada

8 months

15

Quebec

1 year

US

4 months

20 NS of Quebecois, 17 NS of German, 7 abroad 44

Advice/Multiple choice questionnaire Apology/DCT

Warga and Schölmberger Austria (2007) Taguchi (2008) Japan

41 NS of Russian, 90 learners, 59 abroad 20 NS of English, 17 at home, 16 abroad

Implied meaning/Pragmatic Listening Task


85

to define situations as expert language users do. In learning to perform second-language speech acts, students do not ‘blindly copy NS [native speaking] norms,’ but reserve the right to construct their own identities (Shardakova 2005: 423). In other words, the extent to which students’ speech acts become native-like is question of how much their experience permits them to see things from the point of view of natives, and how much they choose to adopt these perspectives as their own. Given the conceptual complexities associated with research on speech act realization, and the practical challenges of gathering naturally occurring complaints, requests, or apologies, most researchers design projects using elicited data and invoking Native Speaker usage as the norm. A typical project involves collecting data on one or more speech acts using some form of the Discourse Completion Task (DCT), where participants are given a range of situations in which they must play act their own or others’ contribution in conversational slots reserved for specific acts. Preferences for the components and structure of the speech act are abstracted from native-speaker data and applied to the analysis of learner performance. Only rarely do these projects consider how the participants define the situations, moving beyond surface-level comparisons between learner and expert usage to consider the sociocultural or identity-related meaning of these phenomena. Study abroad participants are better able to approximate native norms in their realization of speech acts than classroom learners, but they rarely appropriate an entirely native-like repertoire. Warga and Schölmberger (2007), for example, documented a mixture of native and non-native like apologies in Austrian learners of Quebecois French. In Hoffmann-Hicks’ (1999) research with US-based students of French, the participants displayed their ability to perform requests and compliments, providing dialogues in response to a series of scenarios. These students out-performed their counterparts at home, having decreased their use of some dispreferred compliment structures and begun to appropriate some of the features of native-speaker usage, but this progress was gradual and slight. Moreover, many of the students based their requests on American norms for interaction, having failed to perceive, for example, that French students rarely impose lengthy appeals for help or for meetings outside class upon their professors. In a study of requests, also with American learners of French, Magnan and Back (2007a) found that students whose overall speaking proficiency increased (as measured by the OPI) also developed greater ability to craft an appropriately formal stance and to balance indirect and direct forms in the test’s role-play exercise. While these characteristics brought the

86


students’ speech closer to native norms, some native baseline request features, such as the negative declaration (La compagnie n’as pas de moyen de me faire partir plus tôt? [‘The company has no way to speed my departure?’]), were not observed in the data at all. Similarly, in Kondo’s (1997) research on the acquisition of apologies by Japanese students of English in the United States, pre- and post-DCT results showed that study abroad participants moved toward the strategy preferred by native speakers (i.e., providing an explanation), but also increased their use of an approach favored in Japanese (i.e., showing concern for the hearer). Kondo ascribed this development to a mismatch between proficiency growth and sociopragmatic ability; in essence, the students became better able to express concern but did not learn to avoid this approach in the way native speakers do. Barron (2003) used a modified DCT to examine the realization of requests, offers, and refusals by German native speakers and a cohort of 33 Irish students in Germany. The participants in this study moved toward the native norm in several ways. For example, they used fewer ritual re-offers, increased their reliance on German pragmatic routines, and discontinued the use of routines transferred from English (e.g., Ich wundere mich [I wonder]). They also increased their use of syntactic and lexical downgraders in some situations. However, overall Barron suggested that even when investing a full year in study abroad, students may not have the level of access to meaningful interaction that would be required to develop truly native-like competence in speech act performance. In studies employing methodologies other than the DCT, results are mixed. Based on a multiple-choice meta-pragmatic judgment test, Matsumura (2001) showed that Japanese university students in Canada became better able than their peers at home to judge the appropriateness of advice given to people of equal or lower status. Schauer (2006) tested the extent to which German students of English were able to detect pragmatic infelicities in a series of videotaped vignettes, and found that a sojourn of nine months abroad honed the students’ judgment to the point where they could no longer be distinguished from native speakers. On the other hand, in Rodríguez’s (2001) longitudinal study both classroom and study abroad participants moved toward the native speaker norm in their judgments of requests in Spanish, and both contexts appeared to be equally valuable for learning in this domain. Owen (2001) examined how requests were accomplished in OPI roleplay data from 75 US-based students in Russia, with findings similar to those of the DCT-based studies. These students learned to perform requests in a more native-like way, but retained a tendency to prefer


87

speaker-oriented head acts (e.g., I want . . .) over the impersonal and hearer-oriented requests of Russians (e.g., Is it possible . . ., Could you . . .). Other scholars have approached the relationship of study abroad and actional competence from a variety of innovative angles. Taguchi (2008), for example, examined how comprehension of indirect speech acts progressed over the course of a sojourn abroad by Japanese learners of English in an intensive US-based program. The study involved a computerized test in which students responded with ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers about the implied meaning of indirect refusals and opinions, such as Mary’s opinion of the wedding previously cited. Participants manifested increased accuracy in assessing refusals, but only modest gains for less conventional, indirectly expressed opinions. Matsumura (2007) explored the aftereffects of study abroad on pragmatic competence, focusing once again on how Japanese students of English respond to a multiple choice test offering an array of direct and mitigated ways to offer advice. In this case, one year after a sojourn in Canada the respondents’ approach to giving advice diverged from native-speaker norms, especially in scenarios involving higher status interlocutors where they would decline to proffer words of wisdom to their hierarchical superiors. Matsumura’s qualitative findings, based on a focus group interview, suggest that the students were in fact accommodating to a perceived local norm, but that they were also on the verge of joining the workforce and were no longer positioning themselves primarily as students. Insecurity about this impending change heightened their sensitivity to power differentials. Above all, the students had reflected at some length about how to craft an appropriate public persona and had explicitly compared the relatively laid back style of Canadian professors to the typically more formal conventions governing interactions with teachers in Japan. The study abroad experience, bringing exposure to different ways of enacting hierarchy in interaction, had increased the flexibility of their communicative repertoires, that is, their ability to perceive variation in social situations and adapt their language use accordingly. In light of the relatively modest gains documented in the literature, Cohen and Shively (2007) took an interventionist approach to speech act development in study abroad. This project involved 86 US-based students of French and Spanish studying in diverse locales and divided into two groups. The experimental group participated in a pre-departure workshop illustrating the speech act concept, and was assigned regular readings from a manual providing explicit instruction on language and culture learning strategies: Maximizing study abroad: A student’s guide to strategies for language and culture learning and use (Paige, Cohen, Kappler,

88


Chi, and Lassegard 2002). Both groups completed the Speech Act Measure of Language Gain, a version of the DCT in which they supplied multiple rejoinders within written simulations of requests and apologies, and these responses were rated by native-speaking judges. A comparison of pre- and post-test results showed a significant gain for both the control and the experimental groups, but only minor, non-significant differences between them. In other words, study abroad alone appeared to have enhanced these students’ awareness of speech acts, but the strategy-based intervention did not convey a statistically confirmed advantage. Cohen and Shively argued that perhaps ‘the intervention in this area was not long enough, not intensive enough, not effective enough in terms of its content, or not deemed important enough to pay attention to in the moment of production’ (2007: 202). Another explanation for the low impact of the strategy-based intervention may be that, as previously noted, learning to perform speech acts in a second language is as much a question of identity as is of language acquisition. This perspective is illustrated in the most compelling study in the literature on speech acts in study abroad to date: Shardakova’s (2005) research on Russian-language apologies by US-based students, a work distinguishable from the majority of speech act studies in the depth of interpretation permitted by the research design. The author claimed that speakers of Russian evaluate situations involving intimacy, unfamiliarity, or unequal social status in ways that are distinct from Americans’ perceptions of the same situations. Apologies are crafted in accordance with these views, which means that learning to apologize in Russian is more than merely matching the forms used by natives; it requires the ability to ‘see things from the point of view of a Russian’ (2005: 445). Shardakova’s project involved four groups composed of students at intermediate and advanced levels of proficiency and with or without experience of study abroad in Russia. These groups, along with native informants, first ranked both the severity of offences and the distance and power differentials described in the DCT task used to elicit data. As per her hypothesis, Shardakova found that the American students rated offenses involving strangers as most severe, whereas the Russians assigned greatest severity to transgressions involving power differentials (e.g., speaking with an authority figure). In terms of social distance and power, for the American students, friends and professors formed a single category of middle-distance people, as opposed to strangers, whereas for the Russian participants friends were considered much closer than strangers or professors who formed one category. Shardakova


89

demonstrated that proficiency developed in a domestic immersion program may slightly increase the number of apology tokens that students use, but that ‘increases in proficiency alone seem to have no effect on learners’ socio-pragmatic development’ (2005: 434). That is, only a combination of high proficiency and exposure to Russian culture provided students the option of behaving in a native-like manner. Shardakova’s project thus provides unique insight both on the specific advantages of study abroad and on the conceptual dimensions of second-language speech acts. By comparing students of high proficiency who have different experiences of language learning, namely domestic immersion versus study abroad, this author brings to light the importance of learning to conceptualize communicative settings as expert speakers do. However, this achievement will not necessarily prompt desire to model native speakers’ behavior. As in the case of other variable sociolinguistic features, the performance of speech acts involves an element of choice for all language users. Language learners may opt to assimilate, or they may cling to familiar forms of self-expression conceived as elements of their personal identity. As in the case of Hoffman-Hicks’ (1999) Americans in interaction with French professors, they may not enjoy the depth of language socialization that would permit them to rework their basic understanding of what transpires in particular communicative settings. Alternatively, as illustrated in Matsumura’s (2007) project, they may very well perceive fundamental differences in interactive norms, but elect not to follow the second-language conventions they have observed. Opportunities to observe and participate in speech acts abroad may enhance students’ communicative flexibility, based on awareness of potentially conflicting norms (Matsumura 2007). However, students may or may not fully grasp the organic links between these acts and their local meaning. To the extent that they do achieve depth of understanding, they may or may not choose to apologize as Russians do, offer advice to hierarchical superiors like Canadians, or modify their view of students’ rights in relation to professors. Speech acts are multiple indexicals, pointing at once to both situational and identityrelated dimensions of language use. This multiple indexicality means that students may not believe that speech acts contribute to language proficiency per se rather than to personal self-expression. Moreover, a strict focus on the extent to which students copy native norms can capture neither the creativity, nor the array of options, nor the sociocultural resources involved in second-language speech act performance. Nevertheless, most research on speech acts in relation to study abroad

90


skirts these issues, preferring to elicit data using DCTs, which have been shown to generate results differing from language use observed in situ (Golato 2003), or the OPI, whose interactive characteristics have been amply critiqued (see Chapter 2). Above all, as elsewhere in the literature, this research normally invokes a deficit model of the non-native speaker (Belz 2002) whose performance is characterized only in terms of failure to match native norms. Clearly, speech acts represent a key area of interest for languagelearning research. The most revealing projects combine assessment with qualitative inquiry, offering both evidence for specific achievements and resources for interpretation of these findings in relation to the meaning of language use for students and expert speakers. It is much to be hoped that future researchers will design projects in recognition of the complex, multiple indexicality of speech acts, emulating Shardakova’s (2005) efforts to apprehend not only performances but also variable interpretation of situations. It is also clear that the performance of speech acts in laboratory-like settings does not necessarily correspond to naturally occurring language use. Hence, process-oriented scrutiny of language students’ routine interactions in study abroad settings (see Chapter 5) will contribute further understanding, both for descriptions of learner language use and for portrayal of developmental processes.

Discourse competence Discourse competence, closely related to actional competence, concerns the ‘selection, sequencing and arrangement of words, structures, sentences and utterances to achieve a unified spoken or written text’ (Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei, and Thurell 1995: 13). The domains of discourse competence highlighted by these authors include cohesion, deixis, coherence, generic structure, and conversational structure. Cohesion is the aspect of discourse most closely associated with linguistic competence, describing the ways in which linguistic elements such as pronouns, articles, or demonstratives signal co-reference within texts. Other cohesive devices include conventions for avoiding undue repetition through substitution and ellipsis, or the use of conjunction, lexical repetitions, and other explicit links within texts. Deixis is the process by which texts index, or point to features of their situational context through devices like personal pronouns (‘I’ or ‘you’) or temporal reference (‘now’ or ‘then’). Coherence, the most elusive of textual qualities, is the extent to which ‘sentences or utterances in a discourse sequence are felt to be related rather than unrelated’ (1995: 13), and depends upon


91

local preferences for text organization, thematic scope and sequencing, and broader situational and sociocultural knowledge. Coherence is achieved, therefore, through observance of generic and conversational structure, the specific cultural norms defining the structure and content of texts, or in the case of conversation, turn-taking. Participation in conversational interaction requires to ability to open and close conversations, introduce and change topics, recognize and contribute to routine adjacency pairs (e.g., Hi, how are you/Fine, thanks) and repair one’s own or others’ utterances. A number of projects in the study abroad literature touch on issues surrounding on the development of discourse competence (see Table 3.3). Although researchers have rarely summoned the courage to tackle a question as thorny as the development of coherence in discourse, results of some studies illustrate the role of study abroad in furthering student’s command of cohesion, deixis, and conversational structure. As noted in Chapter 2, the C-Test is a holistic measure of reduced redundancy in written texts, and therefore calls upon test takers’ ability to derive a general sense of textual meaning from limited resources, and to restore the overall cohesion of the text. Fraser (2002) tested US-based students of German before and after study abroad using a cloze passage, based on the same principles as the C-Test, and an explicit measure of the extent to which students’ reading abilities were enhanced through improved apprehension of textual cohesion. This test required that students identify the anaphoric and cataphoric referents of pronouns in a journal article about German cinema. Fraser’s results showed that students who were actively engaged in local activities and social networks (e.g., a football team, a theater internship) made greater gains in these discourse-level abilities than did their peers who limited their German-mediated activity to formal study. Grieve (2007) studied the acquisition of pragmatic markers for vagueness by a cohort of German students in Australia. Markers of vague language are used primarily in conversation either for transactional functions such as holding the floor while searching for a word or for interpersonal functions such as saving face and maintaining solidarity in an informal, chatty atmosphere. In English, these markers include general extenders (e.g., and all that), approximators (e.g., like), hedges (e.g., sort of ), and shields (e.g., I guess). Following Brinton (1996), Grieve pointed out that the absence of such markers can make an utterance seem unnatural, awkward, unfriendly, or even dogmatic. At the end of the treatment period, experimental and control group participants remaining in Germany used markers for vagueness at similar rates but

92

Table 3.3 Studies of discourse competence Study

Origin

Destination

Sojourn length

Participants

Instrument(s)

Lafford (1995)

US

Spain or Mexico

1 semester

OPI role-play

Maeno (1995) Marriott (1995) DuFon (2000)

US Australia US

Japan Japan Indonesia

Varied 1 year 4 months

13 in Mexico, 16 in Spain, 13 at home 10 8 6

Sax (2001)

US

France

Varied

Fraser (2002)

US

Germany

1 or 2 semesters

Lemée (2002)

Ireland

France

Varied

Barron (2006) Hassall (2006) Grieve (2007)

Ireland Australia Germany

Germany Indonesia Australia

10 months 3 months 5 months

8 advanced classroom learners, 12 abroad 33 1 2 at home, 2 abroad

Kinginger (2008)

US

France

1 semester

23

10 2nd year, 10 4th year, 10 graduate students 30

Elicited narratives Oral interview Naturalistic recorded data Role play

Cloze test, matching anaphora Sociolinguistic interview Free DCT Diaries Semi-structued interview, Narrative retalling Language Awareness Interview, Role play


93

the students abroad developed a wider repertoire in this domain. That is, the control group relied heavily on I think whereas the group abroad, although not matching the usage of native speakers, had begun to naturalize their conversational English with markers such as sort of, and stuff, or whatever, and like. Deixis offers particularly intriguing questions for study abroad researchers, as illustrated in projects examining development of abilities related to pronominal reference. Among these are two studies of address form competence, or the ability to say you. While at first glance this ability would seem a relatively straightforward affair, in languages offering options for you (e.g., the T/V system in European languages) this choice can be quite complex. In his description of ethnographic rich points, or loci of conflict presenting opportunities to learn about language and culture, the American ethnographer Agar (1994) offered his own learning of the difference between du (informal) and Sie (formal) in German as a case in point. Agar’s grammar books had been ‘clear as freshly washed crystal’ (1994: 18) in explaining that du is for children, friends, and relatives, and Sie is for everybody else. However, his attempts to follow these rules led to numerous gaffes and misunderstandings, including at least one case in which Agar failed to notice flirtatious behavior on the part of a colleague who switched from Sie to du in addressing him. Observation of the ‘social acrobatics’ (1994: 19) needed to restore harmony to interactions following these blunders convinced Agar that the address system in German is a rich point. The ability to say you in many European languages in fact requires both grammatical and sociocultural competence, since the choice of form determines verb morphology and the choice itself is linked to personal, situational, and social conventions. In describing the address system in French (tu versus vous), Morford (1997) treats these forms as inherently ambiguous double indexicals. On the one hand, they may point to the formality or informality of social settings, or to respect, deference, or solidarity within relationships. In a service encounter, for example, mutual vous would normally be in order, but mutual tu is the convention for informal encounters among age-peer members of the same group, such as university students. On the other hand, address form choice also indexes personal identity, with the choice of vous displaying political conservatism, nostalgia for the past, high social status or professional competence, and the use of tu indicating an egalitarian or left-leaning ethos, lower class origins, or the desire for a youthful appearance. The complex meaning of address forms is such that Agar’s social acrobats have found their way into the linguistics literature, for

94


example in Dewaele’s work on the ‘sociolinguistic tightrope’ stretched between tu and vous (2004) to be crossed by learners and expert speakers alike. In the early phases, language learners normally perceive address forms as relatively transparent and easy to manipulate (Dewaele and Planchenault 2006). However, as their access to authentic use of the language increases, they observe the sociolinguistic and interactional complexities of the system and judge address form use increasingly difficult. Two studies have focused on the development of address form competence in learners of German (Barron 2006) and French (Kinginger 2008) abroad. Barron’s study involved Irish learners in Germany and native speakers of German in a Free Discourse Completion Task requesting that they write both sides of dialogues involving offers and refusals, and illustrating intimacy, solidarity, or social distance. Learner uses of du versus Sie and related forms at the beginning and end of the sojourn abroad were tallied and compared with the native-speaker data. Barron then computed the percentage of target-like versus non-target-like address forms in the learner data, showing that target-like forms increased from 62.7 to 80.2 percent while non-target-like forms decreased from 37.3 to 19.7 percent. This change is attributed to greater use of appropriately reciprocal address forms and a decrease in ‘non-functional switches’ (2006: 80) especially within informal interaction. At the end of the study abroad period, however, the participants’ address form use retained a ‘strong learner-like quality’ (2006: 85) with non-functional switching still prevalent in formal situations. Barron proposed that these learnerlike features are traceable to the fact that the students rarely frequented formal social contexts, or to ongoing insecurity due to the complexity of the system. She also suggested that gaining declarative knowledge of the address form system is an important aspect of language learning abroad, and that research should focus not only on performance but also on awareness in this domain. My own studies involving participants from the United States in France (Kinginger and Farrell 2004; Kinginger 2008) examined the development of address form competence in two ways: (1) performance in formal and informal spoken role-play tasks, and (2) metapragmatic knowledge as revealed in a task where the participants chose an address form for each of six situations, and explained their choice. Spoken roleplay exercises are far from ideal elicitation devices, since they require a struggle to define the task while also achieving self-regulation in its performance (Kasper 2001). However, in this instance the role-play data provided a snapshot of the group’s significantly greater ability, at


95

the end of the study abroad period, to match address forms to formal and informal interactive contexts. In particular, the data showed a decrease in apparently unmotivated switching, as had been the case for Barron’s participants, and an increase in appropriate choice of the informal tu form to index age-related group solidarity rather than intimacy. Data from the Language Awareness Interview indicated a decline in certainty as the participants came to perceive the broad array of conventions governing address form choice. In other words, by shedding some of their confidence about how to say you, these students gained in linguistic expertise while abroad. These data also revealed that some participants, particularly those with more advanced general proficiency and significant related experience, had begun to appreciate the concepts underlying address form use and the double indexicality of these forms. For example, Benjamin, a student whose case is discussed in Kinginger and Farrell (2004), was a relatively cosmopolitan and highly proficient user of French. He lived in the well-heeled Parisian suburb of Boulogne, in the home of a baron and baroness who invited him for weekends in their country château and for nightly ‘philosophical conversations’ (2004: 35) over dinner. By the end of his stay, Benjamin understood the identity-related implications of variation from conventional address form use, and claimed the right to display his polite demeanor through the use of vous even in situations normally calling for tu. DuFon (2000) characterizes the choice of address forms in Indonesian as a complex process requiring speakers to match their choice not only to the situation, setting, and age, gender, or status of participants but also to ethnicity and regional origin. Students of Indonesian are confronted with the task of learning a broad array of address terms (kin terms and titles, the intimate and familiar pronouns kamu and engkau, and the more formal and distant pronoun Anda) in a process that may span several years. DuFon observed this process for a group of six beginning and intermediate students on a four-month program in East Java, using learner journals and naturalistic tape-recorded data collected in a variety of speech events such as mealtime conversations, leave-taking interactions, or service encounters. The students were exposed to a reduced number of address terms appropriate for the social settings they frequented, but their interactions with hosts offered numerous opportunities to observe the use of these forms. The participants chose various ways to reduce the complexity of their task. Three of the students made minimal advances in their comprehension and

96


use of address forms. This group chose Anda and used it extensively as if it were the equivalent of you in English, occasionally mixing the formal pronoun with markers of the familiar kamu in the same utterance, thus sending an ambiguous social message. One student opted to avoid address terms and the social hazards accompanying their use. Two students, however, enlarged their repertoire in this area. The intermediate learner Bruce began to experiment with kamu in conversation with age-peers, approximating native-speaker use. Most remarkable, however, is the progress of a student, Charlene, who began the program with no knowledge of Indonesian and developed a repertoire including most of the basic kin terms and pronouns. DuFon’s scrutiny of Charlene’s journal revealed a particular interest in the expression of respect through language and an earnest effort to observe and imitate the practices of her hosts. Development of ability to manipulate deixis in expert ways is also illustrated in two studies focusing on learning how to say we in French using the norms illustrated in Bégaudeau (2006). Contemporary usage includes two variants of the first person plural: the relatively formal nous and the relatively informal inclusive on, with evolution toward preference for on. Both are grammatically correct, but language learners tend to favor nous, based on their exposure to pedagogical materials (Wolf 2006) whereas corpus-based studies show that expert language users prefer on and almost never use nous in informal speech (e.g., Coveney 2000). Use of nous in informal interactions therefore lends a bookish and slightly anachronistic cast to the speech of learners. The cross-sectional research of Sax (2001) compared the use of on among three groups of US-based learners. The lowest proportion (4 percent) was found among second-year, language students with no experience abroad, an intermediate level (57 percent) obtained among fourth-year students of whom half had studied in France, and graduate students with one to four years of time in Francophone environments used on in 81 percent of relevant contexts. Similar results were obtained in another project involving Irish study abroad participants (Lemée 2002), suggesting that study abroad represents an opportunity to observe and appropriate non-pedagogical usage, ultimately helping learners to sound ‘more “French” ’ (Towell, Hawkins, and Bazergui 1996: 112). Studies examining learners’ awareness of discourse genre, although common in the broader literature on second-language writing (e.g., Swales 2004), are extremely limited in the research on language learning in study abroad. Scholars in language education (e.g., Kern 2003; Taillefer 2005) point out that students abroad encounter new textual


97

genres, and insist that one of the main challenges to learning abroad is the development of cross-cultural academic literacy. Yet, competence in the area of generic structure is most often viewed through the lens of grammar (e.g., Collentine 2004) and is rarely framed as a discourse-level phenomenon. One study (Maeno 1995) interrogated the development of oral narrative skills in Anglophone learners of Japanese, showing that students with advanced proficiency had begun to appropriate some features of narrative style, but the development of academic genre awareness is clearly a neglected area. Questions about conversational structure border on a number of other areas, including communication strategies, in the case of repair, and fluency, in the case of formulaic sequences or conversational gambits. Four studies are directly concerned with opening and closing conversational interactions. Among the earliest of these is Lafford’s (1995) investigation of the communication strategies adopted by learners of Spanish at home (AH) and abroad (SA) in the context of a role-play exercise. The SA participants spent a semester in Mexico or Spain, while the AH group pursued second-year level coursework. The role play, part of the ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview for the Intermediate level, required the students to imagine asking directions to a museum from a hotel clerk and therefore to initiate a conversation, gather information, and take leave in an appropriate manner. Of particular interest here is Lafford’s analysis of channel openings and closings (Goffman 1976), and of fillers, connectors, and backchannel signals used to maintain the cohesion of conversations. Overall, the SA participants had considerably more to say in this testing situation than did the classroom students, allowing them to display varied repertoires in each of the areas under consideration. Only three of the classroom learners provided suitable conversation openings, whereas all of the SA participants did so, calling attention to their pleas for assistance with expressions such as con permiso or perdón. Similarly, in closing the conversations, the SA group typically combined several expressions (vale, muy bien, gracias, or muchas gracias, muy amable), while the classroom group tended to offer a bare-bones ‘thank you’ (gracias) or no closing at all. Only the most proficient members of the SA group had begun using Spanish fillers, such as pues, or entonces. The most frequent connector in the data was y (‘and’) but the SA group also displayed a number of other discourse adhesives such as después or también. Similarly, to signal their attention to the ongoing conversation, the students with experience abroad had appropriated a variety of backchannel forms like claro and vale for the participants in Spain, where the latter term

98


is extremely common. As noted in a general critique of studies comparing populations of students at home and abroad (Rees and Klapper 2008), this study is to some extent a comparison of apples and oranges, since the experiences under consideration are clearly very different one from the other, and the language-related motives of SA participants no doubt vary from those of students who stay at home. Nonetheless, Lafford’s project offered empirical support for the widespread belief that study abroad nurtures conversational competence and suggested that students abroad may participate in a range of socializing interactions serving to broaden their repertoire of socially situated language forms. This claim finds further support in Marriott’s (1995) analysis of participation in interviews by Australian secondary exchange students in Japan. Following a year abroad, these students displayed the ability to use polite, routinized expressions for the opening and closing sequences of the interviews, and to do so with apparent ease. As part of the pre- and post-Language Awareness Interview in Kinginger (2008), the participants (US-based students of French) were asked to match a series of leave-taking formulae with an array of briefly described situations (from Ball 1997) and to comment on their choices (e.g., Host Mother speaking to a guest student as s/he retires for the evening, Orator to deceased at a funeral, Leaving a message on a close friend’s answering machine, Shop owner to departing customer). A correspondence analysis revealed that these students, as a group, developed increased sensitivity to formality versus informality in the various situations and ways to say good-bye. At the beginning of their sojourn, many of the participants had yet to appreciate the formality and finality expressed by adieu or the restricted use of informal expressions such as ciao or gros bisous (‘fat kisses’). There were several students whose Host Mothers seemed bizarrely unwilling to give up their guest’s company for the evening (à tout à l’heure, or ‘see you shortly’) and one whose funeral Orator would bid the departed farewell with a rather flippant ciao. By the end, however, most if not all of the students had discovered the meaning of the formulae and learned to assign them to appropriate contexts, especially in the situations they had routinely encountered while abroad. The supposition underlying my research was that students abroad would observe leave-taking activity in a variety of contexts and would participate in encounters where their choice of leave-taking formulae would be of social consequence. This process is the explicit topic of


99

Hassall’s (2006) diary study recounting his efforts to develop competence in leave-taking while studying in Indonesia. Hassall notes that the informal learning environment, even during a short sojourn abroad, is a ‘powerful stimulus for the acquisition of pragmatic knowledge’ (2006: 52). The story unfolding in his diary is one in which the protagonist observes leave-taking formulae in various scenes (on the street, at home, or in television dramas), tests his new knowledge in his own interpersonal encounters, evaluates his level of satisfaction, and repeats the process. Initially he had but one leave-taking formula (permisi) in his repertoire, and required a ‘painful awakening encounter’ (2006: 37) involving failure to acknowledge his interlocutor’s desire to leave, in order to recognize another (the dulu statement). Having learned to take leave via this second formula, he then over-generalized its use, leading to yet another awkward interaction: As I was trudging home on the final stretch after a long hot walk, I was called over to chat by two women in the yard of a house nearby . . . We chatted amiably enough, but I suddenly got the impression that I’d overstayed my welcome – one of them seemed to be casting around rather awkwardly for further questions to ask me. So I rather hastily took my leave, with a dulu statement: ‘Pulang dulu ya’ ‘I’m going home for now, okay’ (literally, ‘Go-home for-now, yes’). I said it a bit tensely and unsmilingly and it felt a bit abrupt as I said it. As I then turned to go, one of them said softly, in English, ‘Excuse me’. I turned around in puzzlement. She then repeated in Indonesian: ‘Permisi’, and laughed. So her ‘excuse me’ had been a gentle correction; a supplying of what I’d omitted to say. (Hassall 2006: 39) Hassall ‘took this correction to heart’ (2006: 39) and continued to cycle through hypotheses about the difference between permisi and the dulu statement, about the role of pre-closing routines in Indonesian, and about the advisability of pre-planning his leave-takings at the expense of attending to subtle interpersonal cues in the conversation itself. Although no empirically based descriptions of leave-taking in Indonesian existed to provide guidance, eventually Hassall understood that permisi conveys a formal and slightly deferential tone, whereas the dulu statement does not. At the end of his sojourn he was aware not only that his conversational repertoire had been refined through continuous social interaction, but also that a great deal remained to be learned.

100


Situating his work in relation to Bialystok’s theory of pragmatic development among adult L2 learners (1993), Hassall challenged the notion that pragmatic knowledge itself is relatively unproblematic, and that the crucial process is one of gaining control over existing knowledge. Instead, acquiring knowledge itself is a ‘major task’ (2006: 53) for the language learner attempting to develop discourse competence through informal social interaction. The studies devoted to discourse competence in study abroad are few but varied in method and scope. Studies of discourse cohesion include text-based assessment (Fraser 2002) and reviews of data collected via interviews (Lafford 1995; Marriott 1995; Grieve 2007). Deixis has been examined in the area of person – reference in naturalistic data (DuFon 2000) and in tasks designed to elicit both written (Barron 2006) and spoken data (Sax 2001; Lemée 2002; Kinginger 2008). Abilities related to conversational structure, particularly leave-taking, have been examined in the context of a general Language Awareness Interview (Kinginger 2008) and in much greater depth through focused diary study (Hassall 2006). Hassall’s commentary following his quest for information about how to say ‘good-bye’ in Indonesian points to one possible reason for the dearth of studies in this area. No empirical description of leavetaking in Indonesian was available to him, thus in an important sense Hassall could not know at the outset exactly what he was looking for, what forms constituted leave-taking in the first place and what social, situational, or identity-related conventions would prove relevant for choosing among them. In this case, the learner was required to assume the role of ethnographer in order to fill in the crucial information left wanting in communicative pedagogy (Leung 2005). One leaves this text wondering if learners of other, more and less commonly taught languages are similarly bereft of guidance and obliged to cast about in search of generic or deixis-related features, conversational conventions, cohesive devices, and the concepts underlying these aspects of language use. At the same time, all of the studies reviewed in this section portray study abroad as a valuable, if imperfect environment for developing discourse competence. The reader may wonder about the contribution of this development to overall impressions of increased fluency and naturalness in language use following a sojourn abroad. If, despite decades of progressive thinking about the value of discourse-based pedagogies (e.g., Scollon and Scollon 1995; McCarthy 2001), these features remain neglected in textbooks and classrooms, then study abroad in fact represents a uniquely well-suited opportunity to appreciate their use.


101

Sociocultural competence For Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei, and Thurell (1995: 23), sociocultural competence is the ‘speaker’s knowledge of how to express messages appropriately within the overall social and cultural context of communication, in accordance with the pragmatic factors related to variation in language use.’ Included under this category are four sub-components, beginning with social contextual factors, or awareness of the ways in which language use is tailored to social situations and to participant variables such as age, status, and equitable or other relations of power. Stylistic appropriateness, the second category, includes knowledge of norms for politeness and of formal or informal registers. Into the broad category of cultural factors, these authors place awareness of regional or other dialects, intercultural communication, and knowledge of the history and major values, worldviews, and practices of communities where the language in question is used. A final sub-component, non-verbal communicative factors, includes kinesics, gesture, affective markers such as facial expressions and eye contact, proxemics (use of space), haptics (touching), and the meanings associated with silence (e.g., the stony silence or the pregnant pause). While knowledge is the basis for making explicit choices, in this domain as elsewhere language learners may or may not opt to conform to the norms presented to them. In the study abroad literature on language learning, the domain of sociocultural competence is represented in qualitative research on student experience (see Chapter 4) and socialization (see Chapter 5), but there are few studies attempting to evaluate cultural or social contextual awareness per se as it relates to language. Knowledge of language varieties has been identified as a need of study abroad participants (e.g., Schild 1981; Iino 2006), who may be quite unaware that expert users do not limit their repertoires to the decorous forms found in textbooks, or that the language use they observe may be marked for gender, age, region, or social class, but to date there are no investigations directly addressing outcomes in this arena. Gesture, proxemics, haptics, and ‘body language’ in general are often highlighted as key features of communicative ability in the popular media, but only gesture has attracted the attention of researchers working with study abroad participants. Jungheim (2006) compared how Japanese native speakers and study abroad participants in Japan interpret and perform a culturally specific refusal gesture called the Hand Fan. In this gesture, the speaker moves an open palm back and forth in front of the face, as if fanning a flame, and the hand takes over the

102


role of the lateral head shake. This gesture can serve to disambiguate accompanying spoken language, often the polite kekkou desu (That’s all right) and emphasize that a speech act is in fact a refusal. Jungheim in fact reports that in his own experience as a second-language user of Japanese, his attempts to refuse offers without bluntly saying ‘no’ (iie) or using a refusal gesture had resulted in interlocutors’ trying to give him things he did not want. Jungheim’s findings, based on participants’ interpretations of and responses to soundless video clips, show that while the native speakers clearly recognized the conventional meaning of this gesture, even after six months of study in Japan the students had not acquired it for receptive purposes and could not interpret its contribution to the speech act of refusal. It is unclear, however, as the author himself notes, that the learners had enjoyed a linguistic immersion experience involving significant social interaction with Japanese hosts. By contrast, a study by Kida (2005) examined spontaneous production of gestures by Japanese students residing temporarily in France. Kida documented the appropriation of discourse and contentoriented gestures specific to French culture, particularly for individuals with high proficiency and a strong integrative orientation to life in France. Taken together, these studies suggest that students abroad may begin to develop a repertoire of gestures but that this process requires a significant investment of time in interaction with expert language users. The majority of studies related to sociocultural issues concern the category of stylistic appropriateness, often termed ‘sociolinguistic competence,’ and in particular, students’ awareness and use of variable features marking formal versus informal registers (see Table 3.4). Most SLA research deals with linguistic features believed to be categorical, that is, not subject to variation in native-speaker usage (Howard 2004). Sociolinguistic competence, however, includes the ability to choose from different realizations of similar meaning, as would be the case when choosing du versus Sie to say you in German, or in the case of negation with or without ne in French: Je ne viens pas vs. Je viens pas. I neg come-pres neg vs I come-pres neg. ‘I am not coming’ (Howard 2004: 144) Research on the learning of French dominates this sub-area, no doubt in part because the history of standardization and linguistic purism in


103

Table 3.4 Studies of sociolinguistic competence Study

Origin

Destination Sojourn length

Participants

Focus/data

Regan (1995; 1997; 2004) Dewaele and Regan (2001)

Ireland

France

1 year

5–6

Belgium, Ireland

France

Varied

29 Belgian, 6 Irish

Dewaele and Regan (2002)

Belgium

France

Varied

27

Howard, Lemée, and Regan (2006) Kinginger (2008)

Ireland

France

1 year

15

US

France

1 semester

23

Japan

1 year

5

‘ne’/Sociolinguistic interviews Colloquial words/ Conversations or sociolinguistic interviews ‘ne’/Informal and formal (structured) interviews /l/deletion /Sociolinguistic interviews Colloquial language/Language Awareness Interview Style shifts/OPI

Iwasaki (in press) US

France has yielded a remarkable gap between the conventions of written language taught in school and contemporary spoken usage (Gadet 1997). This research includes work on awareness and use of colloquial forms, the projects on deixis through address forms previously reviewed, consideration of ne-deletion in negation as illustrated above, and one investigations of a phonological variant. As summarized by Howard (2004: 4), this research shows ‘very evident underuse of informal sociolinguistic markers’ by students whose exposure to French is limited to the foreign language classroom, along with highly beneficial effects of the informal interactions characteristic of study abroad. The research also suggests that students can develop awareness of sociolinguistic variation resembling that of native speakers, but that the status of learner may convey with it an attitude of caution and reluctance when it comes to using stigmatized vernacular language. Dewaele and Regan (2001) scrutinized the use of colloquial words in a corpus of learner French collected in interviews provided by 29 students at a monolingual Dutch university and six Irish participants in an ERASMUS-sponsored year in France. The presence of colloquial lexemes increased only modestly in comparison with data from native speakers, and this increase was associated with time spent speaking French. That is, learners who had spent time abroad displayed a broader repertoire

104


of colloquial words. One of the most striking findings of this study is that the discourse markers hein and ben represented a large proportion of the colloquial words in the corpus (31 percent), suggesting to the authors that students may enter vernacular speech styles through a ‘back door’ (2001: 61) involving words that are not associated with particular second-language concepts. Thus, a period of study abroad can enlarge students’ repertoires in the area of informal language use, but the lexical nuances of these words, and their conceptual representation in implicit memory, will only emerge at very advanced stages of learning. My own project (Kinginger 2008) examined awareness of colloquial language among US-based study abroad participants in France. These students were presented with a list of colloquial words (adapted from Dewaele and Regan 2001) and a series of vernacular phrases characterized by syntactic and lexical features of ‘ordinary French’ (Gadet 1997). They were asked to provide translations of the words and phrases, and to comment on the types of situations where their use might be appropriate. The rationale for this approach stemmed from the general observation that students at lower levels of proficiency tend to avoid vernacular forms, perhaps even in cases where these forms are known. Comprehension of colloquial language, and the ability to identify its association with informal situations or presentations of self, was hypothesized to be a potential outcome of study abroad and an important phase in the development of advanced proficiency. In fact, upon completion of their programs, the students as a group had developed significantly greater awareness of colloquial French, and the task prompted many of them to cite specific instances where informal language use had been observed and the semantic nuances of specific terms highlighted in interactions with French-speaking hosts. Among the more commonly cited studies of sociolinguistic development in study abroad are the investigations by Regan (1995; 1997), into the acquisition of variable ne deletion in French, taken as a barometer of overall acquisition of speech norms. In French, the negative is formed by a particle on either side of the verb, a proclitic ne and a marker of general negation such as pas (plain negation), plus (‘no longer’), or jamais (‘never’). In formal contexts, both particle and marker are retained, but particularly in spoken French ne may be deleted, with its presence or absence serving as a ‘symbolic sociolinguistic indicator’ (Regan 1995: 248) of formality, power, and solidarity. The use of ne can convey a sense of formality, whereas its deletion contributes to casual speaking styles. A command of this feature is necessary in order to manipulate different registers in French.


105

Regan (1995) obtained speech samples through interviews with six Irish students of French before and after their year in France to determine whether or not they would develop awareness of ne-deletion and ability to manipulate it in native-like ways. Regan’s variationist analysis showed a dramatic increase in ne-deletion following the stay abroad, and a tendency for the students to retain the ne in more formal speech, just as native speakers do. However, in comparison with native speakers’ performance, the students tended to over-generalize the deletion of ne in formal contexts. Regan hypothesized that further exposure to native norms would prompt refinement of the students’ performance in this area. In a follow-up study, Regan (1997) demonstrated that the deletion of ne was concentrated in lexicalized phrases such as Je sais pas (‘I don’t know’), c’est pas (‘it’s not’), or il y a pas (‘there are no’) and that, within these phrases, the students deleted ne at a higher rate than native speakers. Regan (1997) argued that the use of such phrases permits students to signal their integration into the French-speaking community. Not only does the study abroad experience allow such display of integration, it also appears to consolidate sociolinguistic skills. Regan (2004) investigated ne-deletion in the speech of the same Irish participants in her earlier studies one year after their return from France, and found their performance essentially unchanged. An additional study by Dewaele and Regan (2002), this time involving Dutch-speaking learners of French, showed that classroom learning had no influence on students’ ability to convey informality through ne-deletion. Only those students who had enjoyed prolonged contact with a Francophone community developed sensitivity to this issue, a finding leading the authors to conclude that residence abroad, or daily contact with speakers of French, are clearly the most effective ways to stimulate acquisition of sociolinguistic competence. A similar conclusion was reached in a study extending this variationist approach to the acquisition of a phonological feature of spoken French, the deletion of /l/ (Howard, Lemée, and Regan 2006). The nonrealization of /l/ is in some ways analogous to the pronunciation of words ending in –ing in informal English (moving vs. movin’), that is, it is a marker of casual speech, attested among speakers of continental French at particularly high levels for the subject pronouns il and elle. Data for the study included sociolinguistic interviews with 19 students of French at an Irish university, of whom 15 had spent a year in France. When tokens of /l/ were extracted from the data and coded, it was found that the study abroad participants deleted /l/ at a much higher

106


rate (33 percent) than did the students remaining at home (6 percent), although they did not reach the much higher rates of /l/ deletion described in studies of native speakers. An analysis of the contexts in which the students with study abroad experience deleted /l/ (a high rate for impersonal il versus a lower rate for the subject pronoun elle) showed patterns exactly in line with native-speaker usage. The authors conclude that time abroad appears to be crucial for instructed learners’ development of sociolinguistic competence. Iwasaki (in press) explored the ability of American learners of Japanese to manipulate plain and polite styles. In Japanese, there are no neutral forms of politeness, and speakers must choose plain or polite forms constantly, in recognition of social and situational contexts. In simplistic terms, plain forms such as iku (‘I will go’) are used in informal situations or to index closeness, while polite forms such as iku-masu (‘I will go’) index social or psychological distance or formality. Difficulty in learning appropriate style is widely attested in the second-language literature, with many studies documenting overuse of the plain forms. However, many purely quantitative studies fail to explore the meaning of these forms and the fact that their use can be mixed, within the same interaction. For expert users of Japanese, they are a resource for the creation of interactional contexts: for example, a teacher may use style shifts to express friendliness toward a student, and that student may switch to the plain form to express emotion, despite status differences. The five male students in Iwasaki’s study followed different developmental routes toward politeness in Japanese, but they all developed awareness of the social meaning of style and some ability to recruit style-shifting to reach their interactional goals. The work reviewed in this section overlaps with research on discourse competence, in that this research is concerned with the linguistic realization of social and stylistic issues such as formality versus informality in speech, and the ways in which students abroad gradually discover how particular forms map onto canonical social meanings in their host communities. For proponents of study abroad, this research confirms intuitions suggesting that certain aspects of language are relatively inaccessible to classroom learners, and provides support for the claim that a stay abroad offers unique affordances for developing students’ communicative repertoires, particularly for informal interaction. Students abroad are shown to enhance their awareness and use of colloquial lexis, and to approximate native usage of key sociolinguistic features of French. On the other hand, the scant research on gesture indicates that a stay abroad only initiates a much more complex and long-term


107

process of ‘re-mediating one’s interaction with the world and with one’s own psychological functioning’ (Lantolf and Thorne 2006: 5). The most remarkable fact about sociocultural aspects of language development in study abroad is that they are so little studied. In examining the research on the backdrop of a commonly accepted model of communicative competence, it becomes clear that certain areas have been neglected entirely, and others have received only scant attention. There are few studies of language awareness or of non-verbal communication as they pertain to social contextual factors. Future research might take an interest in the extent to which study abroad encourages a nuanced view of language varieties or a sense of the ways in which language competence is an embodied phenomenon. Investigations of sociolinguistic competence focus on learners of French but not of other languages. Language, moreover, is usually abstracted from the cultural dimension named by Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei, and Thurell (1995) which means that, at least in the language-acquisition literature, there is very little consideration of the relationships between formal features of language and worldviews, histories, or identities and how these relationships are experienced by students abroad.

Strategic competence Strategy has been among the most popular buzz words in language education and research of the past decades, and refers to the efforts of scholars to create comprehensive taxonomies of the specific ways in which students approach second-language learning (e.g., Oxford 1990) and communication (e.g., Tarone 1980). Research on communication strategies, the traditional domain of strategic competence, concerns the ways in which learners ‘compensate for imperfect knowledge of rules – or limiting factors in their application such as fatigue, distraction, or inattention’ (Savignon 1983: 40). Taxonomies of communication strategies are derived from scrutiny of interactions involving learners, and can include, for example, compensatory moves such as circumlocution or word coinage, stalling strategies (e.g., use of fillers or hesitation devices), and interactional strategies, including appeals for help or indicators of non-understanding. Language-learning strategies are identified as the ‘tools that learners consciously employ in the cognitive process of acquiring a new language’ (Adams 2006: 261). The best-known questionnaire for assessing learning strategies is Oxford’s (1990) Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) dividing strategies into two categories:

108


strategies applied directly to linguistic tasks (e.g., to remember particular forms) and ‘indirect’ strategies used to organize learning or to cultivate positive beliefs about language learning. A limited number of studies have applied frameworks for the evaluation of communication or learning strategies to the investigation of language learning abroad, questioning whether or not, and how, a sojourn abroad might change students’ strategic orientation to language learning and use. In the domain of communication strategies, the best-known projects are Lafford’s (1995; 2004) investigations of role plays performed by US-based students of Spanish. In the 1995 project previously described, these students were shown to have appropriated a far broader repertoire of conversational gambits and formulae than their peers at home. In addition, Lafford observed several differences between the groups in their approach to ‘negotiation of meaning,’ or ‘those strategies used when the speaker does not understand or cannot immediately confirm what the interlocutor has said or has trouble expressing his/her own thoughts’ (1995: 114–115). Specifically, due to their higher proficiency, the study abroad group did not require word-search strategies or switches to English as did the classroom group. The classroom learners, but not the study abroad participants, also over-generalized the meanings of specific words (e.g., empezar/‘to begin’ in the place of abrir/‘to open’) and made indirect appeals for assistance (e.g., I don’t know how to say ‘way’). The study abroad group made ample use of confirmation checks to ascertain mutual understanding, whereas the classroom learners did not, a fact Lafford interprets with reference to the ‘phatic communication they have observed and acquired through daily living in the target culture’ (1995: 117). Lafford (2004: 212) once again examined ‘conscious attempts to overcome communication gaps’ in pre- and post-treatment role plays from oral proficiency interviews with US-based learners of Spanish spending one semester at home (AH) or abroad (SA), this time adding consideration of the students’ use of time for Spanish-mediated activities. In these data, the SA participants employed significantly fewer communication strategies than did the AH learners, and this decrease was associated with time spent using Spanish outside the classroom or in conversation with host families. Because these two cohorts also provided data for Collentine’s (2004) study showing a superior performance on measures of grammatical accuracy for the AH students, Lafford excluded a hypothesis to the effect that the SA group no longer required communication strategies due to increased control of formal features. Rather,


109

she interpreted her findings as related to ‘structures of expectation’ (2004: 213) developed in prior interactive settings. The AH learners had developed expectations of second-language discourse based on interaction with instructors whose primary mission is to provide help in the context of a continuous focus on the formal properties of the language. In SA, however, most interlocutors do not view language instruction as their role, and attend more to messages conveyed than to speakers’ struggle for self-expression. Based on a history of in-country interactions, the SA participants revised their stance away from self-monitoring and toward face-saving and communicative effectiveness. A related effort is recounted in Smartt and Scudder’s (2004) report on a study examining the use of ‘repair behaviors’ by a group of intermediatelevel, US-based students of Spanish in an immersion program in Mexico and a smaller group of their peers at home. In this study, repair behavior is operationalized as a list of categories, including Language switch, Appeal for assistance, Word form search, Circumlocution, and Global revision (in essence, a change of topic mid-utterance). The only significant differences between the groups on the post-test were in the categories of Language switch and Word form search, with the study abroad group decreasing their reliance on English and increasing the frequency of their overt searches for words: la mujer y el hombre que c, c, casad, casada, casan, casa, se casan . . . ‘the woman and the man that m, m, marrie, married, marry, are marrying, get married’ (Smartt and Scudder 2004: 600) The authors suggest that the study abroad students’ attempt to control their own performance is attributable to relatively higher proficiency and to the ‘linguistically stimulating environment of the immersion experience’ within which these students learned to assume responsibility for self-repair in interaction. In the literature on learning strategies, two recent studies have been devoted to study abroad contexts. One of these is a diary study linking results on the SILL with the perceptions and activities of one American learner of Spanish in Argentina, serving primarily to validate the instrument (Carson and Longhini 2002). The other (Adams 2006) examined the extent to which study abroad for a two- to fourmonth period prompted changes in learning strategies on the part of US-based learners in a variety of settings (Austria, Brazil, the Dominican Republic, and France). Because learning strategies are believed to be

110


closely associated with the sociocultural environments of their development, Adams hypothesized that study abroad might alter students’ conscious adoption of approaches to language learning, and that this impact might be influenced by program or individual characteristics or by self-reported gains in proficiency. Adams administered the SILL in pre-program orientations and in the final week of the study abroad programs and analyzed change over time in the students’ avowed choices of strategy. Strategy development occurred for all types of student, and students who increased their strategy use also claimed important gains in proficiency, but the effects of strategy instruction prior to departure were minimal (see also Paige, Cohen, and Shively 2004). Of the several program variables Adams interrogated, only one proved significant: the amount of time spent in group travel (more or less than 20 days). Students who travelled with their groups, unlike those who remained in place, did not increase their use of communication strategies. One sub-text of Adams’ report is the author’s astonishment in finding that the two- to four-month sojourns under consideration apparently did not in every case yield ‘high quality, contextualized exposure’ to language (Isabelli 2007: 333) in abundant interaction with expert speakers. The author noted on more than one occasion that these programs were university-sponsored group events and not academic exchanges or intensive language courses. However, the findings on group travel in particular prompted her to claim that ‘the study abroad programs investigated here are not challenging the students appreciably more than they are challenged in the classroom’ (Adams 2006: 268). On one hand, the notion that high-quality exposure may not necessarily characterize every study abroad experience seem to have escaped the attention of many language-acquisition researchers, and in this sense, Adams’ assumptions may have been justified. On the other hand, the underlying thread of frustration winding through the report leads to the realization that more information is needed about what students actually do while abroad. Lafford’s (2004), and to a lesser extent Smartt and Scudder’s (2004), work present instructive comparisons of classroom versus study abroad participants’ interactive discourse, showing a distinct advantage for a sojourn abroad. However, the work on learning strategies, whether documenting their development or educators’ attempts to convey their importance to learners, presents more lackluster results, suggesting that we also need to know more about why students go abroad, how they conceive of strategic language learning


111

(Gillette 1994), and what benefits they believe will accrue to them if they succeed.

Summary and conclusion This chapter illustrates how scholars have moved beyond the emphasis on general proficiency characterizing the earliest study abroad research and on to documentation of development in specific domains of language ability. The knowledge base generated in response to this challenge is diverse in focus and methodology, and includes at least several studies addressing each domain of communicative competence. The studies of linguistic competence were the first to appear, and have evolved from a relatively straightforward emphasis on global accuracy or lexicon size and toward increasingly subtle analyses of particular grammatical features or of the relationships among words within students’ second-language vocabularies. The process of matching research constructs to the realities of study abroad continued in projects illuminating the learning of discourse competence, speech acts, sociolinguistic abilities, and communication or learning strategies. As elsewhere in the study abroad literature, these projects turn up individual differences, variable performances, and, occasionally, conflicting results. Overall, however, study abroad appears to have a positive impact on communicative competence, expanding and refining students’ repertoires beyond the characteristically pedagogic forms of classroom language use. In cases where this impact has been difficult to prove, refinement of research constructs has gone on to highlight the value of study abroad as an environment for language learning. For example, even when study abroad participants do not completely master tense and aspect, their performance in specific areas is superior to that of classroom learners (Howard 2005). Even if they do not fill every relevant syntactic slot with a token of the subjunctive, they return home with greater readiness to profit from instruction on this topic (Isabelli 2007). Even if they do not perform speech acts like native speakers, their study abroad experience, including observation of practices diverging from their expectations, may enhance their communicative flexibility (Matsumura 2007). A strict emphasis on outcomes as products characterizes much of this research, and here, the judgemental Native Speaker (though pronounced long dead elsewhere) is still very much alive as a distant

112


image of unattainable perfection. That is, despite calls for a model of competence grounded in multilingualism (Cook 1995; Leung 2005), and despite arguments in favor of dialogic models of intercultural communication (Kramsch 2006b), this research is most often based on the monologic performances of individual students, held up for scrutiny against the practices of natives and, frequently, found deficient (Belz 2002). In some studies, however, the Native Speaker is less a judge than a resource. There is a greater appreciation of interactive competence (Lafford 2004; Grieve 2007) and the settings for its development (DuFon 2000; Hassall 2006). In others, such as Shardakova (2005), the reader catches a rare glimpse of phenomenon Kramsch has named ‘the privilege of the non-native speaker’ (1997). That is, we begin to appreciate the complexity involved as students discover new communicative resources and their local meanings, and decide whether or not to appropriate them within their own repertoires. As was the case for the studies reviewed in Chapter 2, the default setting for research on language learning in study abroad appears to be the United States, and the programs frequented by American students. To some extent, when dramatic achievements are not in evidence, particularly in cases of short sojourns and of capabilities requiring a long socialization process or strong empathy and observation skills (e.g., Hoffman-Hicks 1999), some part of this phenomenon may be attributable to the low profile of language learning in the United States in general. However, this research also includes a number of studies from other contexts, particularly Irish learners of German and French, or Japanese and German learners of English, providing some basis for a claim that the development of communicative competence may be constrained in similar ways regardless of the setting, by the length of sojourns or by the students’ need to adapt to home-based practices. Clearly, though, one major recommendation emerging from this review is that researchers take an interest in students from a broader spectrum of backgrounds and origins. Only then will it become possible to formulate reasonable generalizations about the impact of study abroad on communicative competence. As noted in the discussion of Adams’ (2006) project, another need is for greater appreciation of the qualities of study abroad programs, what students do with their time, the extent to which they really are actively engaged in foreign language–mediated activities, how they are received by their hosts, and how they interpret their experiences. Especially in cases where results are unimpressive, doubts begin to emerge as to whether or not participants are immersed in their language of study


113

and position themselves primarily as language learners. In Chapter 4, we begin to address these questions through a review of research portraying the qualities of specific communicative settings that students frequent while abroad, and of research correlating features of experience with developmental outcomes.

4 Communicative Settings for Language Learning Abroad

In reviewing her learning journals, English-language educator Linda Librande described her search for ‘that real soul-melding, transcendent experience that comes with wrapping yourself up in another language’ (1998: 170). After taking little swipes at learning Arabic and Mandarin, Librande settled on Korean. When the occasion presented itself, she took advantage of a five-month stay in Seoul, hoping, apparently, to ‘soak up Korean like a sponge:’ All in all, my FL situation did not foster my language development as much as I had hoped it would. The time was too short. Five months was just a wisp of time and I needed more, much more. Also I had to face the fact that I was living and working in a largely English milieu where many wanted to practice their English with me. Unfortunately, dropping from a cloud onto a Korean street was not enough to ensure that I would soak up Korean like a sponge. It became clearer that learning a new language is a deliberate act . . . (Librande 1998: 183–184) This citation reflects a commonly shared misconception portraying language learning in study abroad as an inevitable, effortless, osmotic process. Like other students abroad, Librande developed a greater appreciation for the investment of time and effort required of serious language learners, and a sense that even in study abroad settings a ‘transcendent’ experience of language learning is often a matter of choice This chapter considers the qualities of study abroad experiences through inquiry into the nature of communicative settings for language learning. The aim of this research, broadly defined, is to explore the nature of learners’ participation in a variety of settings, often with 114

Communicative Settings for Language Learning Abroad 115

an attendant, more or less explicit goal of furthering enhancement of programs or of students’ preparation for them. Interpretation of findings tends to rest on assumptions about the determining force of social factors in language development (Schumann and Schumann 1977). Following the rise of interactionist approaches to SLA (e.g., Long 1981; Gass 1997), this process is most often conceived as operating indirectly: the social environment functions to expand or to constrain the amount of ‘time-on-task’ within which students are exposed to relevant input, and this process, in turn, determines the extent to which proficiency will develop. However, the qualitative study abroad research to date also includes a range of projects without explicit focus on outcomes, aiming to achieve an insider’s perspective on the qualities of the experience. An initial challenge to study abroad researchers taking an interest in the qualities of the experience is the immense variety of programs, host communities, and students involved. Furthermore, students who go abroad encounter myriad communicative settings rich in implicit meaning: . . . the immersion context, far from the protective environment of a language lab, is a complex, multidimensional setting where verbal communication holds significant, yet often invisible, cultural and social meanings, in addition to the literal denotations which students are already trained in the classroom to recognize. (Wilkinson 1998: 132) The scholars whose work is reviewed in this chapter have often coped with this rather bewildering array of variabilities either by designing research to focus on particular settings or by opting for in-depth case study of relatively few individuals. In the latter circumstance, information about the nature of communicative settings frequently becomes quite salient. Study abroad researchers have examined three major settings in which students are believed to have variable access to communicative interaction: (1) educational institutions and classrooms; (2) places of residence, with most of the research focusing on the hypothetical ‘homestay advantage;’ and (3) service encounters and other informal contact with expert speakers (see Table 4.1). Some research has shown that students who are most successful in establishing durable contact with local communities are those who become involved in organizations related to their interests or hobbies (Fraser 2002), and some programs enhance students’ chances of making these connections by requiring such

116

Table 4.1 Research on communicative settings for language learning Study

Origin

Destination

Sojourn length

Participant(s)

Focus/method

Schumann and Schumann (1977); Schumann (1980)

US

Iran, Tunisia

2 months each

2

Personal variables/Diary study

Brecht and Robinson (1995)

US

Russia

1 semester

1 cohort in an ACTR program

Formal instruction/Ethnography

Kline (1998)

US

France

1 year

8 student and host families

Literacy practices/Ethnography

Rivers (1998)

US

Russia

Varied

2529

Homestay/OPI, ETS Reading and Listening

Wilkinson (1998)

US

France

4–8 weeks

Molise and Ashley

Nature of immersion/ Ethnographic case study

Ginsburg and Miller (2000)

US

Russia

1 semester

85

Proficiency gain/Calendar diaries, OPI

Levin (2001)

US

France

1 year

4

Sociocultural interaction/ Ethnography

Mathews (2001)

US

Russia

Varied

170

Gender and proficiency gain/Calendar diaries, OPI

Bacon (2002)

UK

Mexico

1 year

Lily

‘Learning the rules’/Case study

Knight and Schmidt-Rinehart (2002); Schmidt-Rinehart and Knight (2004)

US

Spain or Mexico

Varied

Host families (2002), students (90) and program directors (2004)

Homestay/Interviews and questionnaires

Kinginger (2004a)

US

France

2 years

Alice

Identity remediation/Case study

Pellegrino Aveni (2005)

US

Russia

4–10 months

17, 6 ‘primary cases’

Self-construction/Grounded Theory

Churchill (2006)

Japan

US

1 month

39 high-school students

Classroom experience/ Ethnography

Isabelli-García (2006)

US

Argentina

1 semester

4

Social networks and proficiency development/Diaries and network contact logs, SOPI

Magnan and Back (2007b)

US

France

1 semester

20

Social interaction and proficiency development/ Questionnaires, OPI, LCP, Can-Do Scale

Kinginger (2008)

US

France

1 semester

24

Language development and sociocultural history/Case study

117

118


participation (Schmidt-Rinehart and Knight 2004). However, student involvement in extra-curricular organized activities is an infrequent primary topic of research. In the main, scholarship elucidates those aspects of the study abroad experience that students presumably have in common, and that can be subject to intervention either through program design or through explicit advice on the strategic use of learning opportunities. A critical reading of these studies as a body of literature points to the significance of the language socialization process, including students’ social identity and dispositions toward events, artifacts, and people in study abroad, a topic taken up in Chapter 5.

Instruction Instruction is a defining feature of study abroad, since many participants enroll in overseas programs with the understanding that they will earn academic credit valid in their home school or university. Language educators reasonably assume that the properties of formal instruction will complement students’ exposure to and engagement with purposeful language use in other settings. Instruction can be provided in various formats and with multiple content. Some programs offer courses designed for particular cohorts, others take advantage of special curricula for foreign students offered by host institutions, and still others integrate students directly into the host institutions’ classrooms either partially or fully. The role of instruction in language learning abroad has not been extensively researched, and is not particularly well understood, despite its clear potential as a means of offering support for out-of-class learning (Engle and Engle 1999) and its significance in development of second-language literacy and cultural awareness (Cain and Zarate 1996; Einbeck 2002). Perhaps this relative neglect is due to greater intrinsic interest in the non-academic environmental affordances presumed to complement classroom language learning. That is, researchers are more interested in finding out if and how students break away from classroom norms than they are in learning about discoveries that take place within overseas educational institutions. The research that does exist, however, shows that while some students come to appreciate the contribution of formal instruction, and to see it as an integral part of their overall learning process, for others the concurrent opportunity for participation in non-academic communicative settings highlights the peculiar and constrained nature of classroom discourse. In essence, when students discover the rich variety of living language outside the formal instructional setting, the rarified formality


of classroom talk appears in vivid contrast, and at least at first, may lead to negative appraisals of its authenticity and usefulness. Paradoxically, these perceptions may be intensified when students are engaged in settings where they are exposed to authentic classroom discourse practices of the host culture, and their expectations of classroom norms are not met. Research on the cultures of schooling encountered by students abroad would form a useful complement to investigations of student experience. Clearly, schools around the world share certain norms and expectations, including widely shared conventions of formal schooling, or ‘scripts for school’ that accompanied the Westernization of elites in various countries and the emergence of international middleclass culture (Saville-Troike and Kleifgen 1986). Students who enter foreign classrooms have a highly developed knowledge base for interpretation of events that occur there. They can expect that some basic norms will be in effect governing the distribution of speaking rights and the structure of pedagogical action. They can assume that schools will propagate the ‘voice of rationality’ (Wertsch 1990) in which ‘textbased realities’ are created with language and acted upon as ‘objects of reflection instead of means of communication’ (Wertsch and Minnick 1990: 78). However, despite the ubiquity of norms, values, or patterns of discourse associated with schooling, it is unwise to assume the homogeneity of educational culture. After all, educational institutions the world over are sites where secondary socialization into the practices and beliefs of local cultures takes place both through formal training and participation in the informal interaction surrounding it (Scollon and Scollon 1995; Duff 2002; He 2003). Even in cases where programs for foreign students are designed and taught by specialists in that endeavor, entry into institutions abroad may expose students to unfamiliar social organizations and practices governed by local worldviews and to study genres new to them (Mauranen 1994; Mauranen and Markkanen 1994; Taillefer 2005). These may relate to the physical setting, the role of the institution in defining and controlling students’ lives, the definition of teacher and student roles and responsibilities, the organization of activity, the content of curricula, or expectations for behavior and systems of discipline. When norms clash with student expectations, the result can be misunderstanding in which the participants assign blame to institutions and to teachers. Qualitative research on the role of instruction in language learning abroad presents a somewhat sketchy but varied portrait of student experiences in a range of contexts. Bacon (2002), for example, presented

120


a case in which a clash of norms yielded over the longer term to an appreciation of instruction in study abroad. Bacon documented the experience of ‘Lily,’ a British student in the first semester of her yearlong program at a private university in Mexico. Lily was enrolled in language and culture courses designed for foreign students. In depicting the process by which this student learned the social and academic ‘rules’ that would enhance her participation, Bacon spotlighted the interaction of formal and informal learning. Lily’s overall negative judgment of Mexican academic culture included critiques of the organization as too restrictive, the teachers as too controlling, and the students as infantilized and compliant, even passive. Early on, she could name few examples of ways in which her formal learning had assisted in her language development, citing teacher-centered instruction and decontextualized language, for example in lists of memorized vocabulary. However, although Lily tended to disparage the academic system and to minimize its impact, by the end of the first semester it was clear, both to her and to the researcher, that formal instruction had assisted her in specific ways. Through classroom activities, she had developed a greater awareness of the value and meaning of ‘respect’ in Mexican society, an awareness accompanied by development in her repertoire of address forms (tu versus usted) (see Chapter 3). In particular, Lily learned that using the usted form would index her own deference toward the social status of her interlocutors and allow her to present herself as demonstrating appropriate respect. Meanwhile, her history textbook had assisted her in synthesizing observation and knowledge of social class distinctions in Mexican society. She had developed an ‘appreciation of her own ignorance’ (2002: 643) destabilizing her interpretations based on home cultural norms and opening the way to an awareness of cultural relativity. Although she derived most of her learning from nonacademic contexts, she transferred some of this back into the classroom, thus showing that the relationship between the formal and the informal is dynamic. The changes in her language and cultural understanding – incorporating mexicanismos, adoption of appropriate register, understanding of the importance of context in determining values – may not be attributed to solely academic or solely social spheres. Thus, the case of Lily underscores that cultural, personal, and linguistic change are highly interactive and nonlinear. (Bacon 2002: 645)


Additional evidence on student perception of classroom practices abroad comes from projects affiliated with Language Learning During Study Abroad: The Case of Russian, jointly sponsored by the ACTR and the NFLC (Brecht, Davidson, and Ginsburg 1995). Brecht and Robinson (1995) examined students’ views on the role of instruction in study abroad through an ethnographic study involving on-site participant observation and interviewing as well as a corpus of oral and written narratives. Student opinion was diverse, dynamic, and subject to change over time, as demonstrated in dramatic reversals and other changes of opinion for individual learners over the course of their semester in Russia. Nevertheless, recurrent themes arose, with students valuing the mediating function of classroom instruction, but also voicing ‘substantive criticisms’ (1995: 326) of specific classroom practices, such as grammar lectures. In addition to these criticisms, the data include evidence of other negative evaluation of the classroom related to the overall study abroad context. For example, students cited conflicts between the information about sociolinguistic correctness provided in the classroom and the evidence provided in informal settings where sociolinguistic variants were encountered in use. They became attuned to the contrived nature of teacher-fronted classroom conversation and resistant to participation in interactions considered inconsequential. Most intriguing is the finding that ‘cultural differences accounted for many of the negative reactions students had to classes’ (1995: 330). Russian classroom culture, or at least the culture of teachers educated during the Soviet era, according to the authors, included a moral ideal in which the instructor developed close, personal relationships with students in order to take individual problems into account and to play a key role in helping students to become good people. The qualities of this relationship, according to an instructor who was interviewed on this topic, were comparable to parents’ governance of their children. When Russian teachers tried to enact such an idealized role relationship, the participants took issue with their own supposed role as children, and reacted negatively. Another, related finding of the study is that gender roles observed outside the classroom (Polanyi 1995) were also relevant in the classroom, where female students encountered both behaviors and explicit statements on the part of instructors that they interpreted as bias against women. The study abroad environment, according to the authors, in its ‘characteristic richness and realness,’ ‘has inherent characteristics which are capable of impinging on student judgments’ (Brecht and Robinson 1995: 333).

122


This phenomenon is further illustrated in the research of Pellegrino Aveni (2005), also associated with the larger ACTR/NFLC research involving learners of Russian. Pellegrino Aveni’s qualitative study employed a grounded theory methodology, with analysis of extensive learner diaries. Its larger purpose was to examine what factors influenced students’ choice to speak out or to withdraw from foreign language speaking in the context of second-language ‘self-construction:’ ‘the overarching experience of self-presentation in a second language and the maintenance of security (i.e., status, validation, safety, and control) in a second culture’ (2005: 7). Among the factors affecting selfconstruction are social-environmental cues external to the learner and by which learners gather information on their status, validation, safety, and control in interactions. These cues may include the behaviors or presumed attitudes of others, features that may be affected by the learner’s personal characteristics (age, gender, or physical appearance). Of particular interest here are the social environmental cues termed ‘caretaker behaviors and attitudes,’ and especially the category of ‘insulting feedback and harsh correction.’ The learner diaries included many references to bad caretaking approaches, and some of the clearest examples of these came from the classroom setting, where ‘. . . cultural differences in foreign education programs may foster unexpected conflict for learners. For example, American learners are generally unaccustomed to the directness and openness with which Russian instructors typically perform caretaking duties’ (2005: 57). Participants reported instances in which students were openly criticized or compared with other students by their instructors. This approach was judged by the students to be harsh and out of order, no doubt in part because they were accustomed to instructional interaction in the United States, where teachers avoid overt criticism and attribute accomplishments to students even when they have been co-constructed with the teacher (Poole 1992). Moreover, in the United States, privacy laws forbid public exposure of facts about students’ academic records. For Pellegrino Aveni, when American students in Russia received direct criticism in class, this caused a reduction in their sense of security. One of the examples cited is from the journal of Rebeccah, who was greeted by a new teacher with recognition of her achievement as the holder of a BA degree in Russian and an apparent attempt to foster a sense of solidarity (‘we are like colleagues’): Later in the lesson, I didn’t understand some words (she had asked us to please say something if we didn’t understand. So I asked what the


words meant, and she turned to me & said (basically), “you’re a bad student, you finished college already and you should be ashamed for not knowing!” I replied sarcastically and hurtfully in English, “Thank you.” I really felt like crying! She completely cut me down in front of the class. (Pellegrino Aveni 2005: 58) Following this initial interaction, Rebeccah never recovered her sense of security in the presence of this instructor, opting instead to cut the class and to criticize the teacher in subsequent interviews, for her abrupt style, her tendency to dominate classroom time, and her frank appraisal of American students as comfortable to the point of apathy about the problems of the world. More than a month after the incident recounted in her journal, Rebeccah implicitly blamed this instructor for the state of her speaking skill, which ‘still sucks’ (2005: 59). While it is certainly possible that this instructor was simply inept and intentionally hurtful, it is also possible that her style can be understood from within a system, such as the one cited by Brecht and Robinson (1995), in which the teacher’s proper role and authority is interpreted differently from the way Rebeccah understood it. Indeed, the provision of overt criticism in these Russian classrooms may have been traceable to an understanding of the public/private dimension of social life fundamentally different from the corresponding cultural and codified legal concepts guiding interpretation by Rebeccah and her American classmates (Pavlenko 1999). In the studies thus far cited, devoted to qualitative inquiry around student perceptions of instruction, the analysis of opportunities to speak and of occasions when students are silenced takes place largely from within the confines of the students’ representations of reality. Information about the broader social, cultural, or political dimensions that inform and shape the learner’s place and speaking rights is only shared to the extent that it becomes salient in the participants’ own process of cultural discovery. With the exception of Brecht and Robinson’s brief and somewhat parenthetical treatment of Soviet era values as realized in classroom norms, there is little explicit reference to perspectives of the ‘others’ that students encounter in overseas classrooms. Bacon (2002) provided a thorough overview of the educational institution where Lily was enrolled, but did not analyze the sources of the academic/ cultural ‘rules’ that she needed to learn. For Pellegrino Aveni (2005), the learner abroad has embarked on a process of self-construction determined by social- environmental and learner internal cues. The learner’s perception

124


of and reaction to these cues form the crux of the matter; an explanation of the offending Russian teacher’s behavior in the classroom in terms of local norms of interaction would only be relevant if the student understood and grew to appreciate it. Churchill (2006) took an entirely different approach to the analysis of instructional contexts in study abroad, based on the relationship between identity and positionality, and the political, social, and cultural dynamics of environments designed for learning. For this researcher, ‘when language learners travel overseas, they enter a learning environment that has been constructed by a variety of locally negotiated social, cultural, and political dimensions that affect their place in the host classroom and the degree to which they can participate’ (2006: 204). The extent to which learners participate in instructional environments and the qualities of this participation are not only a matter of selfconstruction but exist in a dynamic relationship with both the microlevel features of specific classrooms and the macro-level dimension of program design, instructional priorities, and local values. Churchill followed a group of 39 Japanese secondary school students from ‘Kansai High’ on a short-term (one month) study abroad program in the United States, serving as teacher and chaperone. The students were enrolled in one of four local secondary schools and participated in various forms of data collection (interviews with teachers and administrators, journals and guided observations by the participants, and classroom observations and focus groups organized by the researcher). Following extensive documentation of these learners’ experiences, Churchill argued that ‘learner competence in the study abroad classroom is largely constructed through the interaction of program factors and local classroom dynamics’ (2006: 209). Churchill’s analysis included a comparison of the exchange students’ reception at St. Martin’s, a small boarding school, and at Belleville High, a large suburban public high school. At St. Martin’s the students’ reception had been carefully organized, with their photos posted in the entry hall, their schedules arranged based on stated preferences, and ‘campus friends’ assigned to guide them through their first day. Thus, these students were immediately set up to meet peers in the context of a shared task based on a relatively transparent artifact (the schedule). They were identified as students with institutionally regulated responsibilities rather than as visitors. No such welcome had been prepared at Belleville High, where the students’ photos, descriptions, and schedules were nowhere in sight. Since they had no schedule, it was suggested that they follow a peer to his or her classes. It was difficult for all parties to


establish these students’ place in the school; they were ‘clearly marked as temporary visitors accompanying Belleville High students to classes in a labyrinth of concrete halls. In many cases, their presence in class was inconsequential at best, and perhaps intrusive at worst’ (2006: 211). Depending on their reception in classrooms, participants were constructed as more or less competent, and their integration into the local practices and social networks of the school was more or less successful. Chuchill provides examples of the situational contingency of student competence. Natsumi was immediately positioned as an expert in her algebra class, and was invited to solve on the board a problem type new to the rest of the class. Nanae, on the other hand, encountered an English instructor who carried on with business-as-usual in a monologic and teacher-centered style. When she tried to speak with her classmates, her attempts at participation through student–student conversation were interpreted as disruptive. Overall, the in-class observations showed that participants ‘had the most positive experiences in classrooms where a change in the local ecology, resulting from their presence, was proactively acknowledged and integrated with ongoing facilitative learning principles’ (2006: 225). The extent to which classroom teachers and the institution more globally valued the presence of the exchange students, recognizing both their needs and their potential contribution, had everything to do with their achievement as language learners. Churchill’s study moved beyond student perceptions to an analysis of their socially situated nature, illustrated through description of differential treatment in classrooms and educational institutions. Key to the analysis is students’ social position: whether they are interpreted – not only by themselves, but also, and crucially, by others – as inconsequential, potentially intrusive temporary visitors, or as legitimate, contributing community members. Like linguistic minority students in other contexts, foreign language learners abroad may encounter indifference to their desire to be seen and heard as competent students (Miller 2003). These difficulties may be compounded in cases where the students receive no guidance in culturally relevant interpretation of the institutional practices and classroom norms they encounter. Kinginger (2004a) offers the case of a study abroad participant in France who eventually abandoned formal classroom learning in order to learn to speak French. ‘Alice’ was a university student from a workingclass background who had invested considerable time and personal resources in her learning of French. Having studied the language as extensively as possible in her home institution, Alice prepared for

126


enrollment in a French university by participating in every program available to her: a five-week immersion program in Quebec, a three-week language course in Caen, and another three-week intensive language program in Lille. In each course, she was placed at the highest level. By the time she had completed this marathon engagement in preparatory courses, and even though her enthusiasm for classroom language learning had grown increasingly lukewarm, she was entitled by her attested level of proficiency to enroll in regular university courses. Ironically, it was at the point where she had achieved this much-desired access to a French university that Alice’s failure to integrate began. Liberated from the preparatory process, she was left to fend for herself in navigating an unfamiliar institution and its equally mysterious classroom practices. Prior to her sojourn in France, Alice had frequented a typical regional state university in the mid-western United States. In this institution, a major gate-keeping function is performed by the application and admissions process, after which students expect the university to maintain a strong commitment to student services and the organization of campus life. The default expectation is that students will leave behind their families and other social structures of their prior lives when they attend college. They will mature through detachment from their family and communities of origin, but the university will function in loco parentis through a variety of social mechanisms designed to monitor student behavior and enhance their identification with – and subsequent contribution to – the college. Incoming students participate in elaborate orientation sessions in which they are explicitly taught how to enter the institution. They are assigned a faculty advisor who ideally assists them in selecting acceptable courses and in developing appropriate study skills. The curriculum is organized around general education in a range of subjects, followed by a specialization in a specific major. If students are required to live in housing provided by the campus, as is often the case for newcomers, resident advisors live with them, offering supportive mentoring and organizing social events for the students while supervising their actions, on the lookout for violation of university codes of conduct. (Alice herself had participated as a resident advisor, as a way of financing her own housing.) In short, the campus where Alice had carried out her previous studies functioned as a comprehensive educational socialization system, restricting students’ autonomy while offering considerable choice in matters of academics. The college years are understood as a period of transition from childhood to adulthood, in which students require institutional oversight of their bodies and minds as they discover their mature predilections and


prepare to assume independent responsibility for their own social and financial well-being (Carroll 1987; Matthews 1997). In the American classrooms Alice had known, moreover, students and teachers act on specific understandings of their roles and responsibilities. Teachers are expected to be accessible to students, to deliver instruction in a more or less dialogic manner that includes student voices and insight, to avoid assigning blame or expressing overt criticism of students, in short: to develop relations resembling solidarity with students (Wylie and Brière 1995). Teachers’ performance is routinely graded and critiqued by students in formal evaluation procedures that can influence personnel decisions taken by administrations. Students compete with one another for the attention and good graces of their instructor who typically will monitor their participation as part of an ongoing assessment involving many points of evaluation over the course of the semester. In her encounter with a foreign educational institution, Alice came into contact with institutional structures and classroom norms that she did not understand and apparently had no means of understanding. Had she understood the nature of the institution, many of her expectations of the French university would have been turned on their head. Although the standardization taking place under the Bologna Declaration is now widely perceived as forcing European universities toward Anglo-American norms, within French universities at the time, the most significant gate-keeping did not occur with the admissions process. Students were admitted based on their qualification by the Baccalauréat examination at the end of their secondary studies, and ‘weeded out’ with the administration of high-stakes examinations. If the practice of contrôle continu (‘continuous evaluation’) was gaining ground, with evaluation of performance distributed across multiple tasks and points in time, the main criterion for success remained mastery of the subject matter as demonstrated in major tests. Students were not expected to curry favor with their professors through assiduous dialogic participation; in fact, they tended to enter into relationships of solidarity with each other in opposition to institutional structures perceived as impersonal at best, and impenetrable at worst, personified by the distant figure of the professor whose main task was not to enter into relationships with students but to dispense knowledge and to judge performance (Wylie and Brière 1995). The subject matter itself was not defined as general education, as students began the process of specialization in secondary school. Rather, it was spelled out in prescribed courses for a given degree, with corresponding high-stakes examinations.

128


Moreover, in comparison with Alice’s American campus, the French university operated primarily as an academic institution, and entry into university-level study was not interpreted as a rupture from students’ past lives. Many students remained in close proximity to their families, retaining close ties to their communities of origin. Their social life was not defined by the university, which meant that the plethora of student services and organized activities characterizing the American campus was simply not relevant. Students were interpreted as relatively autonomous young adults who can and should be able to manage their own affairs, regulate their own behavior, and strategically plot a course through institutional barriers to their success. To the extent that American institutions contrasted with the universities of Europe, then, it may be said that Alice’s trajectory was the reverse of Lily’s (Bacon 2002): from a society in which students are in some sense protected by the school to one in which their independence is assumed and valued. Examination of Alice’s perspectives on instruction alone suggests that she did not learn to interpret her experiences outside of her original frame of reference. Instead, armed with adequate proficiency, Alice set out to register for courses but, at least initially, could not find them. The absence of a guiding institutional structure that she could recognize meant that she literally did not know where anything was, and continually got lost or found herself ensconced in the wrong classroom. After a period of severe confusion, once she had found a routine of classroom participation, the style of classroom conduct that she witnessed on the part of teachers and students served mainly to alienate her further from the educational process. In contrast to the professors at her home institution who are evaluated on their accessibility to students, her French professors maintained metaphorical and physical distance from contact with their classes and certainly did not initiate dialogues with Alice. Meanwhile, the students in these classes exhibited what Alice considered to be total disregard for the lessons, chatting amongst themselves and generally exhibiting a form of in-group solidarity that excluded Alice while preventing her from attending to the teacher. It did not become clear to Alice that these students were simply not going to be judged on the basis of their classroom comportment, but that instead, the mutual assistance and shared information provided by the in-group would be vital when the time came for the all-important examination. Instead, Alice condemned the mainstream classroom as an unproductive environment where she was positioned as an inconsequential outsider and unable even to develop her listening comprehension, because she could not hear the teacher. Coupled


with a professed desire to develop her speaking ability and to break away from instructional discourse, this situation led Alice to avoid the classroom and focus instead on the cultivation of extra-curricular social relationships. Clearly, the success of students’ academic experiences abroad depends on more than just their own intentions, desires, and perceptions. It also depends on how students are received by the institutions they join, whether their presence is construed as influencing, perhaps enriching the academic experiences of others, or as a matter of minor consequence (Churchill 2006). Their success depends equally on whether or not they learn to interpret the academic practices they encounter on their own culturally specific terms and to interpret their own role within overseas institutions accordingly. Bacon’s case study of Lily (2002) presents an example where a student appears to have profited by instruction in a process of reflective synthesis and discovery of cultural relativity. In the cases of the Russian-language students documented in Brecht and Robinson (1995) and in Pellegrino Aveni (2005), negative evaluations of instructional style were probably not perceived by the students as linked to larger social and cultural phenomena. Alice (Kinginger 2004a) obviously did not develop a broadly informed appraisal of unfamiliar classroom practices but instead used her negative evaluation as part of a focused and strategic rationale for skipping school. Thus, although Alice did reach her goal of developing speaking proficiency and to some extent, a French-mediated identity (Block 2007a), her language socialization took place largely outside the academic institution. It is possible that students would be better prepared for engagement in classroom learning abroad if they were taught to expect subtle differences in instructional style, or had explicit information about the cultural differences they might notice. The research reviewed here suggests an important role for educators in preparing students to become dispassionate observers of classroom cultures rather than judgmental consumers of international education. It also supports the claim that students abroad can benefit from open forums, whether physical or virtual, in which observed practices may be contextualized in terms of their own cultural norms. As noted above, the instructional environment is not the only locus of research on the qualities of language-learning experience abroad, and in fact instruction is relatively little studied in comparison to other communicative settings assumed to engage learners in authentic interaction with representatives of the host community. In the next section, we examine the research on options for residence with a view toward

130


ascertaining what is currently known about homestays as environments for language learning.

A homestay advantage? Study abroad participants are normally housed either in institutional residence facilities, in independent lodging, or with a host family. Sometimes they are offered a choice among these options, but often their programs prescribe one among them. When programs require students to live with a host family, this decision is often grounded in a widespread perception that there exists a homestay advantage for language development. Homestay arrangements are generally believed to be among the most significant aspects of study abroad programs, offering students access to the everyday practices of the host community and daily contact with willing participants in meaningful communication (Brecht et al. 1997: B-11). Research examining housing options in study abroad is generally designed to determine whether or not there really exists an advantage for students in homestay settings or to elucidate what aspects of these arrangements do and do not further language development. Knight and Schmidt-Rinehart (2002; Schmidt-Rinehart and Knight 2004) present evidence for the homestay advantage in a triangulated qualitative portrayal of the homestay from the perspectives of host families, students, and housing administrators of programs in Spain and Mexico. The study design was motivated by an appraisal of previous research as based uniquely in a US perspective, interviewing US students from US programs and lending ‘definite slant to the results.’ ‘To neglect the native informant’s viewpoint of the homestay of student adjustment or cultural differences is to neglect an interpretation from the most authentic source. It also assumes that there is no great variation in the two perspectives’ (Knight and Schmidt-Rinehart 2002: 191). The researchers interviewed 24 more and less experienced families on the process of student and host family adjustment, the nature of the homestay advantage, and the problems they had encountered in hosting American students. Because caring for guest students was generally a project of the host mother, they most often found themselves in interaction with the señoras who had accepted this task. In contrast to the numerous models depicting difficulties in cultural adjustment (e.g., Bennett’s 1986 Model of Intercultural Sensitivity in which a person passes through ‘ethnocentric states’ before achieving ‘ethnorelativity’), one surprise was that the host mothers did not believe that most students have trouble in adjusting to their new surroundings.


The early phases of the sojourn were recognized as the most difficult, and, although participants in short-term programs do learn, these students never really adjust to the family in the way that longer-term residents do, in part because brief stays often involve spending more time outside the home. When asked about the characteristics of successful participants, the host mothers did not name linguistic ability as a significant factor. Rather, they cited students’ openness and confidence, and, in the Mexican families, their previous experience of family life, with students from divorced families experiencing difficulty in accepting the warmth and love characteristic of strong and extended family ties. Additionally, they mentioned that ‘girls who come from close-knit families and either live with their families or see them frequently tend to become much more homesick than those who have lived away from home or in dorms’ (Knight and Schmidt-Rinehart 2002: 192). Also, those who have boyfriends at home or who have never traveled find it difficult to relinquish ties to home in order to be immersed new experiences. Technology was also blamed for adjustment problems when students regularly connect online with their families and friends at home. To facilitate the homestay, these informants suggested that students arrive with greater knowledge of the host country and its customs. They stressed the importance of convivencia or harmonious coexistence within the understanding that student visitors are the ones who are going into another culture and who must adjust. Problems associated with hosting American students arose from practical concerns such as food, expensive phone calls, and worry on the part of host mothers for the safety of students who stay out until the middle of the night. Most remarkable, however, is the difficulty host families experience when students refuse to communicate their needs or to take advantage of opportunities to speak with the host family and to use the family as a resource. Some students simply do not volunteer to join in family activities, while others’ over-scheduled social lives or extensive travel plans leave them little time to spend at home. The image conveyed in Knight and SchmidtRinehart (2002) is of concerned, generous, and loving host mothers eager to provide extensive assistance to their charges and to some extent to adapt their own homemaking practices and scheduled activities in order to accommodate them. Schmidt-Rinehart and Knight (2004) provide additional data through a questionnaire administered to 90 students. From among this group, 40 randomly selected students were also interviewed, as were the housing directors of six programs. Themes of the interviews mirrored those of the first study: adjustment, problems, and the nature of the homestay

132


advantage. Overall, ‘for the majority of students, it is the host family that turns “study” abroad into a more culturally inclusive “living” abroad experience’ (2004: 261). Most students felt that they were well matched with their host families and felt comfortable with these families at the end of their stay, a fact reflecting the extensive and careful process of family screening and selection by the housing directors. In general, the students also spoke in support of the homestay advantage, citing the families’ efforts to assist them, expanded opportunities to speak, and the importance of mealtime as a context for learning. Since most of the students interviewed did not make Mexican/Spanish friends, the host family was their central connection to local reality. Many students, however, expressed greater homesickness than they had revealed to their hosts, and some students were disappointed in the limits on conversation in smaller families and in cases where the television dominated meals. The most frequent complaint heard from students was that families did not make enough effort to include them in activities. There was a discrepancy between families’ and students’ view on the locus of responsibility in this case: to recall, the families’ dominant opinion was that the onus is on the student to participate and show willingness to be included. To dispel this misunderstanding about the role of students in host families would involve opening lines of communication, perhaps with the assistance of housing directors and others involved in the orientation process. The authors also suggest that the process of cultural information gathering in homestays be formalized through data-gathering tasks involving projects to be carried out by the students at home (e.g., Raschio 2001). Such projects would serve to increase students’ interactions with host family members while deepening their awareness and understanding of cultural differences. Rivers’ (1998) study of homestay placements versus dormitory residence was affiliated with the larger ACTR/NFLC project involving learners of Russian. If students in homestay environments enjoy continuous immersion in which ample and authentic language input is available, these students should display interactive language skills superior to those of students living in university dormitories with other participants in their program. Historically, American students in Russia had usually lived in dormitories, as no other option was available until after the fall of the Soviet Union. From the autumn of 1994 on, however, the sponsoring agency (ACTR) enacted a programmatic change systematically placing students in Russian homes, thus providing an opportunity for statistical analysis comparing gain scores for homestay versus dormitory residents. The surprising finding of Rivers’ study


was that homestay was a negative predictor for gain in speaking, had no effect on listening, and was a positive predictor for reading gain. Thus, the study provided no support for the hypothesis that homestay arrangements foster interactive language competence. Rivers explained these results with reference to an ethnographic study of homestays as learning environments by Frank (1997). The ‘unsettling’ picture emerging from Frank’s study showed that ‘the quality of interaction with the native Russian hosts was often restricted to quotidian dialogue and television-watching, that participants spent a substantial percentage of their time alone engaged in homework, and that participants and hosts both frequently expressed frustration at the inability of the participants to communicate in Russian’ (Rivers 1998: 496). Rivers tempered his interpretation by suggesting that the homestay sample may not have been entirely comparable to the dormitory sample, particularly in the crucial domain of prior language learning experience. Furthermore, Intermediate level speakers may be reluctant to ‘force the issue of input and practice, especially in the face of indifference or a lack of tolerance for linguistic errors and limited communicative ability’ (1998: 486). Such learners are relatively unlikely to exhibit desirable self-management skills in pursuit of higher proficiency, opting instead to formulate goals relative to the constraints of their environment, in this case, choosing to focus on excellence in the classroom over developing communicative skill. Case studies of individuals and cohorts offer intriguing details on the specific qualities of successful and unsuccessful homestay arrangements. Wilkinson (1998) contrasts the cases of two undergraduate students of French enrolled in a short-term summer language program in Valcourt, France. Molise, a Cambodian-American student, had experienced language immersion as a six-year-old refugee and was inspired to learn French after experiencing Francophone texts in which the characters’ ‘struggles between indigenous roots and French rule paralleled her own tug-of-war between her Cambodian heritage and American surroundings’ (1998: 124). Ashley had traveled extensively throughout the world with her parents and wanted to develop her fluency in French in a situation in which she would be ‘more than a tourist’ (1998: 125). The two students had much in common, according to Wilkinson, in that they were both relatively cosmopolitan and worldly, with experience of border-crossing and similar prior training in French language. Molise was warmly welcomed and treated like a family member. She spent much of her free time with her host family, playing games with

134


a younger ‘sibling’ and helping to cultivate the garden. In a retrospective interview, she praised the homestay setting for its qualities as ‘a major part’ of her French language learning experience: The greatest opportunity (to use my French) was actually with my host family. I got to speak French every day with them and they even gave me feedback as far as my improvement . . . They wouldn’t be like on me like a hawk, but if I made like some grave error, they’d just correct me, and if I made little mistakes here and there, they wouldn’t like make like a big deal out of correcting me. They’d just go “Oh, oh, it’s this” and then, you know, conversation goes on . . . By the end of the month they told me that I improved tremendously as far as my French speaking skills and stuff. (Wilkinson 1998: 130) At the end of her sojourn, she was invited to stay until the end of the summer and accompany the family on their vacation. Since Molise was unable to change her plans, she was invited to return the following year. In the interim, she corresponded with her hosts. In the end, she changed her major from Biology to French, and returned to France for a full academic year of study. Ashley, on the other hand, recounted severe disappointment from the beginning. Orphaned at the arrival train station by her host family, she had to be driven to their home by a member of the program staff. Upon arrival, she was shown to her room by an anonymous character (‘this guy standing there with his dog,’ 1998: 128) and left alone for the next three hours. Thereafter, the host family appears to have left her almost entirely to her own devices; they did not engage her in extensive interaction in French. Speaking of her host mother, Ashley commented, She never said that much (to me), and every time she’d say something and I’d say ‘Comment?’ (to ask for repetition), she would just say, you know, ‘Oh never mind. It doesn’t matter,’ and wouldn’t repeat it. I mean, obviously she wanted me to speak French, and if I didn’t understand it on the first time, you know, that was too bad. (Wilkinson 1998: 130–131) For Ashley, French immersion was quite limited, although she was living in France. She did not develop friendships with French students, since she was enrolled in a language immersion program for foreigners, and her interactions in service encounters were both limited and


occasionally frustrating. Ultimately, she decided to cut short her stay in Valcourt, and considered dropping her minor degree program in French. Wilkinson speculated on the true nature of these students’ motivation and readiness for language immersion in study abroad. Due to her history of mixed allegiance to different national cultures, Molise might in fact have been better prepared to value cultural relativity and suspend judgment in the interest of learning, while Ashley’s experience of world travel as a tourist might have fostered unrealistic expectations of the ways in which others would position themselves in interaction with her. In any case, the two students clearly received differential treatment within their host families, resulting in greater desire for French-language competence for Molise, and in alienation and possible abandonment of such goals for Ashley. The homestays experienced by Pellegrino Aveni’s (2005) learners of Russian were also quite diverse. To recall, this author took an interest in students’ sense of security based on four factors: status, validation, safety, and control. For some students, interaction with host families was based on mutual trust; the students’ status was maintained as they were ‘validated’ by their interlocutors within settings where they felt safe and in control of their own process of self-presentation. For Madeline, the host family kitchen came to represent the ‘personal connection and outlet she has into Russian culture as a temporary member of a Russian family, giving her a sense of belonging and opportunity that she doesn’t perceive other students as having’ (2005: 141). Madeline constructed the host kitchen as a kind of crucible where her information resources and daily discoveries were blended into a productive and motivating mix: I learn so much in front of the television and at the kukhnyu (kitchen), cultural information, how to laugh, real conversation. . . . I’m thoroughly prepared when it comes to the Russian kitchen and when I go visiting I have things to talk about ’cause I watch more television than most folks in my group. I love bringing conversation topics to the kukhnya “(kitchen).” I love going out and finding new things. The kitchen motivates me. (Pellegrino Aveni 2005: 141) Host families were credited with offering ‘positive, supportive behavior’ that can ‘give learners the security they need to pursue their L2 communication goals’ (2005: 61). Host family members who interacted with learners in patient and non-judgmental ways accepted students as competent individuals in a process of linguistic apprenticeship. However,

136


some interactions with host families were far from ideal. Camille, for example, was placed in a host family where she was deprived of ‘control’ over her own destiny. She moved in with a domineering host mother whose ‘verbose barrage’ (2005: 43) of fast-paced and longwinded stories was both overwhelming and incomprehensible, leading Camille to avoid any attempt to manage her conversations with this individual. When the host mother then began to make plans for Camille’s activities, Camille interpreted this action as another loss of autonomy, and began to develop an explicit strategy of avoiding her host mother’s company. Under the category of ‘excessive attention’ (2005: 65) Pellegrino Aveni suggested that too much attention from members of a host family (or anyone else) may serve to isolate learners. Madeline, the same student who eventually developed great affinity for her host family as symbolized by the kitchen, was also subjected to humiliating public commentary from her host sister because she was black. The sister treated her as a toy and an object of curiosity rather than as an intelligent conversation partner. Invited to attend this sister’s vocal performance, Madeline attempted to blend in with the audience and to deflect comments challenging the legitimacy of her presence at the event, but in the end she was unable to escape the curiosity of others, and their commentary about her race. She ‘felt like a doll’ (2005: 65). In this case, Pellegrino Aveni’s interpretation is that in response to this challenge to her social status, Madeline’s failure to ‘use her language to change the situation’ (2005: 66) was due to her belief that she lacked control of the situation and believed that nothing could be done. Finally, Pellegrino Aveni cited a case in which the host family represented a threat to student safety. Bob and Marie, a married couple pursuing their studies in Russia, lived with a family whose 14-year-old only son exhibited violent proclivities. ‘Vitalik’ subjected Bob and Marie to physical and emotional abuse culminating in an episode where, under his father’s supervision, the child aimed an empty 9 mm handgun at Bob and pulled the trigger in ‘a game of shoot the American’ (2005: 48). This rather dramatic case illustrates the extremes to which the resentment of temporary family members may play out in the actions of a host family’s ‘real’ children. Kline (1998) explored conflicts between school versus host family values, examining the social practice of literacy among eight US-based undergraduates, their academic program, and their host families in a junior year abroad program in Marcillac, France. The author’s interest was in learning how students read and respond to literacy practices they observe, and in how they use texts as bases for conversation.


Themes emerging from this ethnographic study centered on the students’ struggle to mediate conflicts: (1) between academic and everyday culture; (2) between the version of French culture promulgated by their college and the reality students discovered in their host families; and (3) between their established identity as American students and their apprenticeship to French culture. In the academic program, the students were given to understand that the French are, in general, highly cultivated, critical consumers of literary culture and highbrow journalism. They were counseled to read Le Monde as well as canonical works of French literature. In the homes, however, host families tended to subscribe to popular magazines of mass appeal, such as Télé 7 Jours, and to openly reject the texts chosen for student use. This was true in spite of the fact that the families had been chosen from among the town’s Catholic upper-middle class. The ‘polar staples of student reading diets’ (1998: 154), both the local newspaper and required coursework, were equally distained. Readings for courses were either considered too difficult for Americans, or were deemed fundamentally detestable (‘we read that 20 years ago, but we hated it’, 1998: 154). This conflict led the students to contest the validity of their professors’ choices and to complain about their academic coursework. On occasion, however, certain texts were shown to foster interaction between the students and their hosts. Kline cites the example of L’Amant by Duras, whose film version opened to considerable controversy in Marcillac during the students’ sojourn. In this instance, the families were aware of the text, the students could identify with its themes and characters, and they felt confident in their ability to discuss it because they had read the book and seen the movie. All of these conditions were rarely met, however, and when they were absent, students found text-based interaction with their families to be daunting if not impossible. Kline documents the formation of a hybrid, therapeutic sub-culture within the group (DeLey 1975), in which literacy practices were genderdifferentiated (with women reading more in general, displaying greater flexibility in their choice of texts and inviting more shared reading). By the end of the year, interaction in the host families had improved for some, with the French families recommending books and discussing the students’ coursework over dinner. In summary, studies of the students’ experiences with host families do offer some support for the hypothesis that there exists a homestay advantage. This support is clearest in the interview-based studies of Schmidt-Rinehart and Knight (2004; Knight and Schmidt-Rinehart 2002), where the majority of participants (students, host mothers, and

138


housing directors) spoke in favor of this arrangement, citing the ready availability of second-language conversation and entrée into local practices in Spain and Mexico. This study, however, did not involve formal assessment of the participants’ language ability, as did the research of Rivers (1998). Rivers’ attempt to correlate residence in Russian homes with the development of interactive language competence came up empty-handed. Instead, the homestay was shown to predict gain in reading ability, a finding attributed to the participants’ social isolation (Frank 1997). Case studies examining the history of individual students’ experience reflect the obvious fact that families vary widely not only in their composition, social class, economic resources, and values, but also in the reception they provide to their student guests and the reasons for their engagement in this activity. Students may encounter warm and welcoming families, or they may be treated as anonymous paying boarders. In the best cases, students’ legitimate peripheral participation (Lave and Wenger 1991) in host family life gradually serves to position them as competent and valued family friends who may openly share any confusion they may feel, and work with the family to elucidate cultural differences. In the worst cases, host family life can alienate students from language study, humiliate and isolate them, work in opposition to academic goals, and even place them in emotional and physical danger. The quality of experiences is a matter of a complex interplay between students’ identities, actions, and perceptions and those of their host families. As noted by the host mothers in Knight and Schmidt-Rinehart’s (2002) research, successful students accept responsibility for adjusting to their new surroundings and initiate participation in family activities, for example, when Molise volunteered to help in the family garden (Wilkinson 1998), or when Madeline shared her experiences and observations in the family kitchen (Pellegrino Aveni 2005). This interaction is highly complex, however, and may involve ideologies of gender and race that are quite beyond students’ control. Students in host family settings do encounter enriching, lived cultural experiences, but also conflict, and in these cases the limits of research on student perceptions alone become clear. In the case of Camille’s domineering host mother (Pellegrino Aveni 2005), for example, because the analysis is limited to the student’s perspective, we do not know whether the host mother’s actions are to be interpreted entirely as a gross invasion of Camille’s private life, or perhaps alternatively, as friendly and inviting behavior which, if understood from within its own cultural context, would be intended to show concern for her language development


and to welcome her into a range of social settings. Research on the conceptual differences between Russian and American English shows that Americans tend to privilege the concepts of ‘privacy’ and ‘personal space’ in evaluating interpersonal relationships, whereas these concepts are not part of Russian discourse (Pavlenko 1999). In fact, Russian has no translation equivalents of these concepts. Situations interpreted by Americans in terms of violations of privacy and personal space are interpreted in alternative ways by speakers of Russian (Pavlenko 2003). Camille might have encountered something far more interesting than an idiosyncratic personality; in choosing to distance herself from her host mother she might in fact have missed an opportunity to better understand a key source of Russian/American cultural misunderstanding. Thus, once again, the success of students in study abroad contexts may depend on the extent to which they are prepared – by experience, training, or expert mentoring (Laubscher 1994) – to suspend judgment in order to strive toward locally relevant interpretations of events.

Service encounters and other informal contacts In addition to examining the institutions of school and family, investigators of language learning in study abroad have attempted to characterize the quantity and quality of students’ interactions with native speakers within informal contexts generally. While some research aims mainly to offer informative descriptions of out-of-class interactive language use, many studies attempt in some way to correlate out-of-class contact with measured proficiency. One of the most apparent difficulties in correlational studies of this kind is the operationalization of ‘informal contact’ whether it is conceptualized as a quantity or as a quality. What is the most valid and reliable method of capturing and/or condensing students’ accounts of their informal interactions, and will this method guide researchers toward definitive findings on the relationship between language development and extra-institutional language use, the most salient aspect of overseas study? For study abroad researchers, the assumption seems to be that the answer is to be found in the details: the greater the precision with which students’ interactions can be recorded, the more we will know about the ‘time-on-task’ assumed to predict success. Accordingly, researchers have devoted considerable effort to the design of instruments for close documentation of student activity, such as the Language Contact Profile (Freed, Dewey, Segalowitz, and Halter 2004). Two studies affiliated with the ACTR/NFLC project on

140


learners of Russian are based on detailed records of student activity in the form of calendar diaries. Ginsburg and Miller (2000) offered an exploratory investigation of the relationship between the activities of students outside of formal classroom settings in study abroad programs and the outcomes of these programs in terms of documented proficiency in spoken Russian. Their data, collected in the spring of 1990, included detailed calendar diaries in which the students recorded what they did, where and with whom they did it, and in what language, along with extensive ethnographic observation (student narratives, focus groups, observations, and videotapes). Although on the whole the students spent substantial amounts of time speaking Russian in a variety of structured and informal settings, there was great variation across individual participants. Ginsburg and Miller hypothesized that time-on-task, as operationalized by the activities recorded in the diaries, would correlate with measured gains in speaking ability. However, the results of the study were so surprising that the researchers could barely conceal their astonishment: Statistical tests and graphical analyses clearly show that there are no evident differences between gainers and non-gainers on any of five criteria: time out of the dorm, time with any Russian, time with Russians only, time spent speaking only Russian, and time spent speaking a mixture of Russian and English. If anything, non-gainers are exposed to more favorable circumstances for learning (e.g., time spent speaking Russian only) than are gainers, though the differences are not statistically significant. Well! If time-on-task-like variables do not account for language gain, what does? (Ginsburg and Miller 2000: 245) In describing cases of gainers and non-gainers, Ginsburg and Miller concluded that if we are to understand language learning in study abroad, ‘we must dig deeper into the qualities and specifics of student experiences, we must understand what students bring to them and how they use them for learning’ (italics in the original) (2000: 256). Simone, for example, participated in frequent social encounters, but these events did not involve adaptation to her level or other assistance to her performance as a speaker of Russian, and she made no appreciable gains. Ginsburg and Miller pointed out the benefits, to their gainers, of reflection on the process of language learning. They suggested that the affective quality of the experience is important, citing the case of Phillip, a non-gainer who was a victim of two physical


assaults (a robbery and an encounter with a drunk person) early in his sojourn and thereafter never overcame his ambivalence toward Russian language learning. Finally, they cited evidence in the ethnographic data to suggest that their participants’ experiences with foreigner register might lead to questions about the extent to which the language that students encounter in study abroad is always as authentic as it is believed to be. Mathews (2001) also employed calendar diary data in her study of behaviors correlating with proficiency gain by male and female participants in a sample involving 170 participants in the academic years 1989–1990, 1991, and 1996–1997. Notably, in this study, based on a different and smaller sample than that of the earlier report (Brecht, Davidson, and Ginsburg 1995), no correlation was found between gender and gain in speaking or listening proficiency. Mathews broke down the categories in the Ginsburg and Miller (2000) study from 5 to 30 behaviors hypothesized to correlate with gain (e.g., Time spent using English, Time spent with one Russian person, while using Russian only). Although the results for male participants were inconclusive, the female participants kept more detailed records of their interactions than did the males, and significant positive correlations were found between speaking and listening gain scores and a number of behaviors such as time spent with Russian people exclusively speaking Russian only, time spent with one Russian female person, and time spent with a host mother. These findings lend credence to Mathews’ concluding recommendations (2001: 207) that women should speak as much Russian as possible in the company of Russian friends, and preferably with one Russian friend who is female. Mathews then goes on to embed these recommendations in a curious statement about the effects of culture on communication, echoing a similar statement by Brecht, Davidson, and Ginsburg (1995: 57) in the conclusion of their report. National and gendered cultures are inherently problematic as they constitute barriers to communication, and the interaction between them is negligible: This makes sense if one accepts that there are differences between male and female “cultures,” the cultural barrier between American and Russian women should consist only of differences in American and Russian culture, whereas the cultural differences between American women and Russian men includes differences in gender cultures as well. (Mathews 2001: 207)

142


When an American woman interacts with a Russian woman, she has only to contend with the national culture as women will share a ‘gender culture.’ Potential differences between and among the ways that gender may be performed by females in each society are not mentioned, nor is the possibility that language socialization may involve exposure to new options in the performance of gender (Pavlenko 2001). In this way, the discussion effectively bypassed an issue raised in Polanyi’s earlier study (1995), namely the possibility that males and females may be exposed to communicative repertoires that are different in kind and should be evaluated accordingly. Mathews then commented on the potential benefits of intimacy within friendships in promoting Advanced and Superior level scores on the Oral Proficiency Interview, including functional abilities to manipulate abstract topics of conversation. If ‘Russia is a society in which American female students are not often asked their opinion about politics, science, etc.’ (2001: 207), the report did not make clear whether this is generally the case or only the case in mixed gender interactions, and did not advance the hypothesis that these norms may change over time. One might assume, based on the correlation between same-gender interaction and gain scores, that interaction among females includes a healthy measure of abstraction. Either way, female students are to be counseled on the advisability of initiating and otherwise actively pursuing such conversations, ‘at risk of feeling ridiculous or stupid’ (2001: 208) even when their current language proficiency does not permit them to sustain such interaction. Isabelli-García (2006) offered four case studies of American learners in a one-semester program in Argentina, drawing together an array of interrelated theoretical constructs (social networks, motivation, and attitude) to account for the relationship between linguistic competence, personal characteristics, and contact with the host culture outside the classroom. Language competence is here, once again, defined in terms of the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines. Proficiency was assessed using two instruments, (1) pre and post-study abroad Simulated Oral Proficiency Interviews (SOPIs); and (2) a more fine-grained measure of linguistic accuracy obtained through monthly informal interviews designed to elicit the features of language use deemed advanced by the ACTFL Guidelines (tense and aspect, and agreement of person, number and gender). Proficiency testing results were evaluated against accounts of the learners’ experience in terms of: (1) social attitude as reflected in tallies of positive and negative evaluations of the host culture in diaries and informal interviews; (2) motivation (high or low, intrinsic,


instrumental or integrative) as determined via comments on the preprogram questionnaire and in diaries; and (3) the nature and extension of social networks within which profitable interaction would presumably occur. Perhaps the most innovative aspect of this study is the inclusion of these latter data, based on Network Contact Logs collected, like the calendars diaries, at three-week-long intervals during the semester. The three male participants made measurable progress on the SOPI, with Stan moving from Intermediate High (1+) to Advanced (2), and Tom and Sam each progressing from Intermediate Mid (1) to Intermediate High (1+). Jennifer, however, remained at the Intermediate Mid (1) level in her post-program SOPI. These results are evaluated in terms of the complex of factors identified as relevant in the study design. Stan, for example, displayed a generally positive disposition toward his experience in Buenos Aires, along with high integrative motivation maintained through a social network including Argentine friends. Although he lived in an apartment with two Americans and a Mexican, he chose to speak more Spanish than English. Stan also opted to make contact with a friend of a friend living at some distance from Buenos Aires; this decision ultimately connected Stan to a broad network of Argentines who traveled to and from the capital, including Stan in their socializing and travel plans. Stan is credited with overcoming ethnocentrism and with the self-confidence required ‘to initiate and sustain topics and use a range of speech functions’ (2006: 244) thus promoting restructuring of his interlanguage. This development, in turn, is reflected in an increase in linguistic accuracy (from 91 to 94.2 percent) and in his attainment of the Advanced level of Oral Proficiency. The non-achiever Jennifer entered the program with instrumental motivation to use Spanish in a career devoted to agriculture. However, indications of her positive attitude began to fade almost immediately, as she encountered both practical impediments to her integration into Argentine society and unfamiliar gender-related practices. Jennifer was initially placed in a homestay situation where she was treated like a tenant: the single woman hosting her ‘gave her a key and had little or no contact with her’ (2006: 250). Jennifer then moved twice before settling with an acceptable family, thus delaying her adjustment and the beginning of any process of establishing social ties through the family. Furthermore, excerpts from Jennifer’s diary evidence ‘a gendered experience, similar to that of other women who have studied abroad’ (2006: 250). Jennifer encountered practices such as ‘ugly’

144


piropos or catcalling on the street, which included comments about her weight: I have noticed that Argentine men are not at all shy about telling a girl she is fat. Several times I have been out walking on the street or with friends and someone has pointed out the fact that I am not stick thin. I can’t imagine being an Argentine woman and having to put up with that. (Isabelli-García 2006: 252) In an informal interview, Jennifer mentioned that she had not found a place in Argentine culture, and that she had given up on that quest. By the fourth week her documented social network was limited to the host family, program staff and faculty, and an American friend with whom she spent most of her free time. Over time, her increasing isolation was reflected in a general decrease in all forms of social participation along with negative attitudes and low motivation. Although she demonstrated a slight increase in linguistic accuracy on the measure included in the study (82.2 to 91.8 percent), Jennifer made no progress in her mastery of past tense and aspect (a major requirement of performance at the Advanced level on the Simulated Oral Proficiency Interview). Furthermore, her comments suggested that Jennifer never moved beyond her initial ethnocentrism. This low level of achievement is explained in reference to Jennifer’s failure to ‘seek opportunities with native speakers in which she could practice more advanced conversational strategies.’ Furthermore, ‘the negative attitude that Jennifer had toward the host culture and her low motivation to learn the language hindered her from including more Argentines in her social network; she lacked any investment to learn the target language’ (2006: 254). Another partially successful attempt to correlate student activity abroad with language development is Magnan and Back’s (2007b) research involving 20 American learners of French in semester-long programs in Paris and Montpellier. Like Isabelli-García’s participants, these students began their sojourn with Intermediate level proficiency, as measured on the ACTFL scale. As a group, they had upgraded their proficiency by the end of their stay: six had climbed one level and six two levels, but eight of the students maintained their pre-departure level, showing no improvement. Furthermore, at the end of their stay the group expressed greater confidence in their language ability, as indicated by the Can-Do Scale, a self-report measure about tasks an individual claims to perform with ease or difficulty. Having demonstrated this


group effect and variation within it, the authors attempted to explain the relationship between proficiency growth and housing options (with or without native speakers of French) and French-mediated activities such as speaking French with American classmates or with fluent French speakers, reading newspapers, watching films, or eavesdropping on others’ conversations. Magnan and Back (2007b) reported no difference in language gain based on housing arrangements, a finding they link to student comments about variable homestay experiences and to earlier research (e.g., Rivers 1998). Analysis of the activity types in relation to proficiency development yielded only one significant result: a negative correlation of speaking French with American classmates against level of improvement. Continuing their search for an explanation as to why some students showed proficiency gains and others did not, the authors conducted a post-hoc test of the relationship between gain scores and age, gender, or level of prior coursework. Neither age nor gender proved significant, but growth in speaking ability was shown to correlate with advanced studies (sixth semester or beyond). Magnan and Back (2007b) brought up the possibility that students with Intermediate proficiency are not always ready to engage in extensive interactions with expert language users, but prior academic experience may increase some students’ readiness for learning. However, these students may be returning home from their semester abroad just as their self-confidence increases to the point where ‘ability to maneuver in academic and social spheres permits them to form the bonds with native speakers that will lead to increased proficiency’ (2007b: 53). They also critiqued the routine practice of in-country orientation sessions building American group cohesion and solidarity. These sessions ‘indoctrinate students into an Americanized community of practice that will impede their language acquisition’ (2007b: 57). Finally, and first among American study abroad researchers, they pointed out the crucial role in their students’ learning of non-native, but expert users of French. Three of the participants who registered gains in speaking proficiency mentioned friendships with other international students who served as near-peer intercultural mentors, listening and patiently assisting them as they struggled to express themselves. It would appear, based on the findings of Magnan and Back (2007b), that research constructs based on scholarly hypotheses may not always correspond to the real activities of students, or the ones they find most compelling and useful. Few studies expressly investigate the qualities of informal contact with expert speakers that study abroad students

146


enjoy. However, some case studies do demonstrate the rarity of extrainstitutional contacts and their dependence on specific circumstances. Tanaka (2007), for example, interviewed 29 Japanese students about their contact with English outside the classroom during 12-week sojourn in New Zealand. These students reported very few opportunities to use English and an irresistible attraction to ‘a cosy Japanese environment’ (2007: 50) constructed with their compatriot peers. The homestay proved most likely to provide settings for English-language practice, but many of the students declined to engage actively in interactions with host families, due to low proficiency or to shyness. Case studies also confirm Kaplan’s (1986) findings on the significance of service-related interaction within institutions. Of the student observations related to contacts outside the home or school recorded in Pellegrino Aveni (2005), a great many relate to attempts on the part of the participants to negotiate access to goods and services in post offices, tour agencies, shops, and other marketplaces. The salience of these events no doubt has to do with the real consequences of success or failure to achieve what one has set out to do in a service encounter. In some cases, when students set aside their fear of appearing incompetent within encounters where their interlocutors are willing to engage in negotiation of meaning, they are eventually able to overcome their limitations. For example, when Rebeccah needed to ask permission of a grocery store clerk to count the number of chocolates in a box, her inexpert manipulation of the genitive plural led to high hilarity: The cashier just started laughing at me! So I knew I made a mistake! Surprisingly though, this did not put me off. I began laughing too. And at the end of the transaction, we were both smiling. And I didn’t feel dumb – and I didn’t falter or stutter. It was just fun & funny. (Pellegrino Aveni 2005: 64) Of course, in many contemporary urban environments, if service encounters are perceived as excessively challenging, they can be avoided. In an ethnographic study of four female students on a yearlong program in the south of France, Levin (2001) described the extent to which language learning was downplayed in the ‘Midstate University’ program, portrayed as a by-product of study abroad which, in turn, was interpreted primarily as a process of coming-of-age. The study illustrates how the students she followed learned survival strategies for avoidance of service encounters they found unpredictable, thus difficult. When faced with a French university dining hall, for example, they


encountered a script for mealtime appropriacy that confounded them utterly. A cafeteria meal in France is a relatively structured affair, and involves exchanging a ticket for a complete meal (salad or first course, main course, yogurt or fruit, dessert, and bread). Given the students’ difficulty in identifying both the script and the food itself, this episode became a cultural and linguistic adventure. As they were rushed through the serving line, unable to determine what they had been served or to choose dishes constituting an appropriate meal, the students were subject to overt criticism and began immediately to plan strategies for escaping the dining hall: As I watched the students, they paused after they received their plate of food to try and figure out what they had been given. After passing through the main course aisle, the student diners had to choose a certain number of plates from different areas. Instead of venturing into a new culinary experience with a salad such as celeriac remoulade, or a dish of fresh beets, sometimes students found it easier to substitute a Coke or an extra cookie for a salad. If they did not select all the courses, the clerk would stop them and point out that they needed to take more. It interested me that such a seemingly basic experience could have its distinctive cultural script. In these first meals in France, students tried to figure out what they were eating, and what they might buy during the day that they could keep in their dorm rooms so they would not need to come back to the cafeteria. (Levin 2001: 113–114) Subsequently, many of the students declined to prolong their engagement in this adventure, despite the fact that the cafeteria provided their most economical access to nutritious food. They opted instead to find sustenance, without interference from cafeteria workers, in selfservice chain stores such as Monoprix or Carrefour, where familiar products such as peanut butter and salsa could be purchased in near total anonymity, without interaction in French. Another case where interpretation of service encounters may have been clouded by misunderstanding based on diverging cultural scripts is provided in Wilkinson’s (1998) analysis of Ashley’s access to informal contact outside her disagreeable homestay situation in Valcourt, France. For Wilkinson’s participants, a surprising number of transactions in the host community really did not require second-language use. Students could frequent establishments where their intentions could be made clear with a gesture or a brief, formulaic utterance, and they could

148


usually avoid situations requiring precise explanations of their needs. Ashley did find herself in a situation requiring that she justify her claim, when a Monoprix sales associate refused to refund her purchase of a broken hair dryer: “I was so mad!” Ashley recalled. “I couldn’t believe what I was able to say – I was coming up with sentences that I’d never put together before. . . . I told her ‘the customer is always right.’ And you know what she said? She said I was crazy! French people are so obstinate!” (Wilkinson 1998: 131) According to Wilkinson, in this encounter, Ashley witnessed evidence for a French/American cultural difference in expectations of customer and sales person roles. If standards of customer service and satisfaction are a hallmark of business discourse in the United States, in France, according to Carroll (1987) the traditional view held that customers must apply for service from employees who were believed to hold power over their clients. Like the other members of her cohort, Ashley did not view such situations as opportunities for learning. Rather, because cultural differences are implicit and rarely subject to overt scrutiny, she relied instead on interpretation via negative stereotype. Students who develop friendships and close personal ties to local social networks tend to be those who either live with a welcoming and socially active family, have contacts established prior to their sojourn, become involved in local organizations, or develop truly personal, romantic relationships. In the latter case, one might assume that students are reluctant to expose the details of their linguistic interactions to the researchers who study them. In the Isabelli-García (2006) study, Stan’s experience illustrates the benefits of prior contact in developing a social network, while Tom’s story shows how involvement in local organizations can offer access to people. Due to a service learning requirement at his home university, Tom was obliged to do volunteer work with a local church, and thereby gained and maintained friendships within this group. Although his appreciation of Argentine culture remained critical and patronizing throughout his stay, his progress was notable in development both of proficiency and of accuracy in the Advanced functions tested by the researcher. Bill, a participant in my own study (Kinginger 2008), ended his sojourn in Dijon, France, with impressive progress on measures of proficiency and awareness of sociolinguistic variation. Bill’s social network was expanded by his participation in a campus association, Melting Potes


(pote being a term for friend in an informal register) as well as his proclivity to share an interest in video gaming with a circle of peers. Another participant, Louis, was a devotee of French literature who had initially taught himself the language in order to read Céline in the original, who excelled in the integrated study abroad classroom with French students, and who, at the end of his sojourn, was awarded the highest score that had ever been attained by a North American on the Test de Français International. By volunteering with a local soup kitchen (Le Camion du Coeur) Louis expanded his circle of friends in Montpellier to include fellow volunteers of all ages and walks of life, thus also expanding his repertoire of formal and informal language. The impediments to development of close local ties are, however, significant. When students embark on study abroad sojourns of short duration, often they do not have time for extended contact with local people. Moreover, they may remain attached to their communities of origin through the electronic umbilical cord of computer-mediated communication (Knight and Schmidt-Rinehart 2002). Such was the experience of Deirdre (Kinginger 2008), whose alienation and homesickness led her to spend nearly all of her spare time in France on email and instant messaging with friends at home. Students may be drawn into social networks of their own compatriots (Kline 1998; Levin 2001), a process that may be built into the design of their programs (Magnan and Back 2007b). In Kinginger (2008), for example, data from learners of French were collected during a period of high political tension between the United States and France at the onset of the US-led invasion of Iraq. Out of concern for the safety of the students, one program’s administrators multiplied opportunities for them to increase their time together through sheltered, chaperoned activities and excursions. Students themselves may come to understand their sojourn abroad less as an opportunity to connect with local people and more as a one-time-only chance for travel and exposure to high culture. In Kinginger (2008), I examined the trajectory of Ailis, whose sojourn in France included weekly travel to destinations away from her primary residence in Montpellier, and who appeared to have forgotten some of what she knew about French by the time she returned home. Finally, when students encounter challenges to their expectations based on differences in cultural scripts for particular kinds of interactions, they may either choose to avoid these interactions (Levin 2001) or interpret them in terms of negative stereotypes about the host group (Wilkinson 1998). One notable exception was Alice (Kinginger 2004a) whose abandonment of formal instruction corresponded to a fierce determination to

150


speak French. Alice’s profile set her apart from the American group: she was older than most of her cohort, came from a working-class background, and had experienced many adult situations such as severe financial hardship and homelessness. During her two-year stay in France, Alice deliberately situated her learning experience in the informal social networks she cultivated, hosting parties in her dorm room and frequenting many student gatherings. Among her peers, she encountered challenges to her apathy toward world politics that were initially quite devastating to her self-image but that she resolved by upgrading both her political awareness and her sense of purpose as a future educator. By the end of her stay, she was ‘the Queen of France,’ having ‘these long philosophical conversations using big long French words’ (Kinginger 2004a: 236). Studies of informal contact with expert speakers in study abroad are of key importance, since it is language development outside the confines of classroom discourse and of institutional constraint in general that study abroad is assumed, above all, to promote. However, such studies present great challenges to researchers precisely because informal contact, by definition, occurs outside the reach of institutionally defined activity, imposing researchers’ reliance on the precision and accuracy of students’ own accounts. Even when detailed reports of students’ activity are available, however, the relationship between proficiency and ‘time-on-task’ thus operationalized is not straightforward. As demonstrated in the findings of Ginsburg and Miller (2000), studies of students’ informal language use may need to move beyond mere cataloguing of time spent in various activities if the use of this time and its impact on development are to be understood.

Summary and conclusion In reading studies of informal contact as of educational and residential contexts, it is quite apparent that research engaging questions of learner identity, and particularly gender, might serve to elucidate some aspects of this problem. To the extent that systematic studies of informal contact succeed in correlating a detailed operationalization of this construct to the development of language proficiency, it would appear that female gender presents a special circumstance. Recommendations for strategic behavior, in Mathews’ study (2001), emerged only for female participants. In Isabelli-García’s study (2006), the female student’s alienation and isolation led to a reduced social network, in turn limiting her learning opportunities. Here, the implicit understanding appears


to be that responsibility for this sequence of events is to be assumed by the student, via her negative attitude and low motivation. Rarely is the possibility advanced that female students’ encounters with different practices and ideologies of gender might in fact constrain their access to learning in ways that are not overtly acknowledged and that might not in fact be under their control. This is true despite the fact that gender surfaces elsewhere in the study abroad literature on communicative settings even when it is not a focus of the research (Brecht and Robinson 1995; Kline 1998; Knight and Schmidt-Rinehart 2002; Pellegrino Aveni 2005). If gender – or other aspects of identity such as race, ethnicity, social class, or degree of abledness – do in fact play a role in shaping learning opportunities or of students’ dispositions toward them, then studies problematizing learner identity may well offer new insights on the qualities of the study abroad experience in relation to language learning. Stepping outside the focus on determining causes of language acquisition, such as ‘time-on-task,’ qualitative researchers find that foreign language–mediated interaction in host communities is in fact much more than the equivalent of an experimental treatment. As in the case of instructional contexts and homestay relationships, the qualities of this interaction, and indeed the extent to which it is available, desired, and pursued by individuals, are a matter of the interplay between students’ dispositions and those of their interlocutors. Some students are shown to shy away from all but the most rudimentary of foreign language–mediated exchanges (Levin 2001) whereas others make a personal mission of obtaining access to informal language use (Kinginger 2004a). Some interlocutors welcome learners with patience and forgiveness of error, while others are indifferent, at best. The literature presents numerous episodes where unscripted interactions with expert speakers place students in the midst of ethnographic ‘rich points’ (Agar 1994), the loci of conflict where opportunities for learning about the relationship between language use and culture are presented. Too often, however, and throughout the literature on communicative settings, students recount these instances not as learning opportunities but as salient, unpleasant encounters where interpretations of the ‘other’ via stereotypes were confirmed. These studies suggest the relevance of a closer look at the precise qualities of foreign language–mediated interchange between learners and their interlocutors, and of the role of this interaction in the process of second-language socialization. Taken together, investigations of communicative settings in study abroad present a rich and detailed portrait of learners’ varied experiences

152


from which there emerge few easy generalizations and no precepts that can be applied in good conscience to every student. Attempts to extract universally valid claims run aground on inconclusive findings, counterexamples, and exceptions to rules. Of course, many of the studies cited in this chapter owe this underlying quest to the heritage of utilitarianism that has informed investigations of American language learning abroad since the 1960s. To recall, for Carroll (1967), study abroad was a fixed and unitary variable producing measurable proficiency, while for Schumann and Schumann (1977) the social context interacted with psychological and personal variables to produce a chaotic and highly variable but forceful determination of outcomes in SLA. In the drive to understand what causes SLA in study abroad, these researchers naturally turn their attention away from the question of identity except, in some cases, to the extent that it figures as an impediment to learning. More questionable is the notion that language proficiency, defined as a complex of functions and semantic contents enhanced by accuracy, is little more than a product to be extracted from social contexts. This definition abstracts language away from its cultural meaning (Lantolf 2007) and makes the social context irrelevant except as a kind of functional language lab in which learners may recruit native speakers for practice in the speech acts (e.g., narrating, hypothesizing, and supporting opinions) that will figure on the test. Culture, in this definition, does not exist in an integrative relationship with language, but instead stands in the way of students who must traverse the barriers it erects between nationalities and genders in order to get the language practice they require. It is no wonder, then, that the complexities of intercultural communication and identity do not figure prominently in these accounts even when social settings are investigated for their role in language development and causal models seem to reach the limits of their explanatory usefulness. The beginnings of a more complete understanding emerge from ethnographic and other qualitative studies of learner experience. Here we learn a great deal about students’ interpretations of their interactions in a range of institutional and more informal settings. The relationship between identity, language, and culture as it plays out in study abroad becomes clearer as we examine case studies in which students struggle to make sense of confrontation with unfamiliar norms and interlocutors. With a few notable exceptions, the primary commitment in this literature is to adequate representation of students’ perspectives, even though student newcomers by definition do not understand the local meanings of events and interactions. While it is useful to understand how students


make sense of their foreign experiences, the reader may experience some frustration at the authority these students are granted in reading the meanings of other cultures and at the infrequent reference to the perspectives of the foreign people they meet. One may also wonder about the role of unexamined representations of student perception in crafting dominant views of study abroad such as the ones critiqued by Gore (2005), where, for example, foreign educational institutions are deemed inherently inferior to those of the United States. Study abroad is presumed to be an occasion for language learning within a general upgrade of appreciation for the perspectives of others. If these two outcomes are mutually constitutive, it would be useful for study abroad researchers to examine those perspectives in concert with participants’ interpretations. This move would generate a more realistic picture of the learning opportunities that exist, how they are taken up or how they are shut down, and might even yield useful recommendations for students’ observation and withholding of judgment in study abroad. To ‘dig deeper into the qualities and specifics of student experiences’ (Ginsburg and Miller 2000: 256) thus requires a methodology that is at once more holistic and more particularistic than the approaches exhibited in the studies thus far reviewed. In the next chapter, we move on from studies of communicative settings to investigations of language socialization within specific interactions characteristic of study abroad. Within these studies, issues of social identity and the qualities of participation can no longer be ignored.

5 Language Socialization and Identity

In Me Talk Pretty One Day (2000), essayist David Sedaris recounts his adventures as an adult voluntarily learning French. Like many other Americans abroad, Sedaris was surprised to discover that the language did not come naturally to him as a side effect of life in a foreign country. Instead, he observed that his status as a foreign adult placed him at a disadvantage, and he became actively jealous of French babies whose first-language development is carefully nurtured by surrounding adults. In fact he writes, ‘I wanted to be a baby, but instead, I was an adult who talked like one, a spooky man-child demanding more than his fair share of attention’ (2000: 161). Rather than admitting defeat, Sedaris changed his goal, more than once, with the importance of language waxing and waning in response to experience. His ambivalence about language learning finally gave way to enhanced desire for competence in French when he and his partner settled in France for a period of over a year. At this point, Sedaris moved to Paris with the precise goal of learning the language. Enrolled in a language school for international students and classified as a ‘true debutant’ (2000: 166), he was at first intimidated by the other students’ apparent fluency. Then he encountered a tyrannical professor whose classroom management bordered on the sadistic. Like the bad caretakers of Chapter 4, the exaggerated caricature of a French teacher in Sedaris’ book mercilessly bullies, demeans, and humiliates her students. In response, Sedaris, who previously had been relatively tolerant of ambiguity and prone to take risks in speaking French, became convinced that everything he said was wrong. In addition to avoiding service encounters, he had two ways of coping with his situation. At home, he redoubled his efforts to take on some kind of identity as a 154

Language Socialization and Identity

155

student. After his teacher accused him of laziness he began to obsess about his homework for four hours each night: I suppose I could have gotten by with less, but I was determined to create some sort of identity for myself: David the hard worker, David the cut-up. We’d have one of those ‘complete this sentence’ exercises, and I’d fool around with the thing for hours, invariably settling on something like ‘A quick run around the lake? I’d love to! Just give me a moment while I strap on my wooden leg.’ (Sedaris 2000: 171) At school, he took comfort in the knowledge that he was not alone in his plight, engaging in ‘the sort of conversation commonly overheard in refugee camps:’ ‘Sometimes me cry alone at night.’ ‘That be common for I, also, but be more strong, you. Much work and someday you talk pretty. People start love you soon. Maybe tomorrow, okay.’ (Sedaris 2000: 172) Sedaris’ ‘spooky man-child’ is a poignant illustration of the reduced sense of self experienced by many language learners in the early stages of their stay abroad. Dependent on other people’s representations for a social identity, Sedaris mustered every effort to assemble an interesting personality from the raw material of dictionaries and grammar drills. He often changed his mind about whether or not it could be possible to develop proficiency in the language, his opinions fluctuating on the basis not only of practical need but also of small victories and defeats in the learning process. For Sedaris, the inevitable helplessness of the muted second-language user is a source not only of frustration but also of intense creativity. His fictionalized struggle to learn French highlights the significance of learner identity and of socialization: what kinds of people learners take themselves to be and to become, and how they are welcomed and assisted, or not, in the social settings where they are involved. In second-language research, interest in identity and socialization is an inevitable outcome of listening to learners’ stories. These stories illustrate aspects of the learning process not easily encapsulated in most studies of SLA, where human experience comes catalogued as a series of neatly packaged causal variables. On one level, the wholesale and

156


facile definition of study participants as language learners loses some of its credibility, as does the array of personality and affective factors presented in the literature on individual differences. Motivation, for example, is not an immutable quality that learners carry with them throughout their experience. Rather, motivation is dynamic and even volatile, responding to specific events and practical or emotional circumstances. Likewise, tolerance of ambiguity and of risk-taking, both considered to be attributes of good language learners, can be reshaped and even stamped out, as was the case for Sedaris, at least temporarily. The most obvious among biological variables, such as age or gender, are only relevant if they are invoked in telling the tale. On another level, one may begin to lose faith in the assumption that a learning context like study abroad can be seen as a form of experimental treatment. Newcomers to language communities are received in various ways; they may be welcomed and assisted in developing the competence they require for growing involvement, or they may find that their participation is limited and that they are not embraced in the manner they had anticipated (Norton 2000). The learner is no longer analogous to an unconscious object on a chaotic ride through a sea of variables, like the pinball of Schumann and Schumann’s metaphorical depiction. Students are endowed with human agency; they consciously and actively contribute to shaping their own learning experiences in which they may accept, accommodate, resist, or reject the communities and practices they encounter (Lantolf and Pavlenko 2001). Students’ stories, and close attention to their experiences, show that language learning is as much a process of socialization as it is of acquisition. The learner need not always be construed as a metaphysically independent processor of predictable, standard linguistic forms, but can also be interpreted as an apprentice developing a unique repertoire emerging from settings where learning is encouraged. That is, language learning involves more than the accumulation of competence in some sense owned by individuals: it is one aspect of the larger process of becoming a person in society (Ochs 2002). As novices learn from more expert members how to use the language accurately and appropriately, they gradually come to inhabit specific social roles and relationships and to exhibit increasing expertise. This chapter considers insights to be gathered from close attention to the specific qualities of students’ encounters abroad and to the stances they adopt in relation to their host communities (see Table 5.1). Through focus on the language socialization practices of homestay families and students’ dispositions toward their experience, we arrive at a

Table 5.1 Research on language socialization and identity Study

Origin

Destination

Sojourn length

Participant(s)

Focus/approach

Hashimoto (1993) Polanyi (1995)

Australia

Japan

1 year

1

US

Russia

1 semester

160

Talburt and Stewart (1999) Twombly (1995) Siegal (1996)

US

Spain

5 weeks

12

US

Costa Rica

1–2 semesters

21

Australia

Japan

18 months

Mary

MurphyLejeune (2002) Wilkinson (2002)

Various European

Various European

1–3 years

50

Homestay/Discourse analysis Gender/Narrative study Gender and race/Interpretive ethnography Gender/Content analysis Sociolinguistic competence/Ethnography European identity/ Phenomenology

US

France

1 month

4

Churchill (2005) Cook (2006)

Japan

US

1 month

Masa

US, UK, Korea

Japan

1 year

8 students and host families

DuFon (2006)

US

Indonesia

1 semester

5 students and host families

Iino (2006)

US

Japan

8 weeks

Kinginger (2006; 2008)

US

France

1 semester

Students and host families 24

Homestay, Conversation analysis Gender/Ethnography

157

Homestay, folk beliefs/Language socialization Homestay, taste/Language socialization Homestay/Microethnography Gender and national identity/Sociocultural theory

158


new level of particularity (van Lier 2005). In contrast to the research reviewed previously, where individual differences or gender effects are left unexplained, here we see in minute detail how language ability may or may not emerge from the complex interplay of host and student practices. The first section examines studies documenting the precise nature of language socialization in interactions where learners participate. These studies are based on recordings of actual talk unfolding in homestay settings and play a clear complementary role in a global appreciation of language learning abroad. They allow the reader to ‘dig deeper into the qualities and specifics of student experiences’ (Ginsburg and Miller 2000: 256) and to see exactly how the relationship between learners and interlocutors plays out in conversation. The second section reconsiders two ‘variables,’ gender and nationality, from the point of view of language socialization, as aspects of identity that may influence both the ways in which students are received and the stances they adopt. In this research, based mainly upon students’ own stories of language learning, it becomes clear that individual differences are partially grounded in the interpretations of study abroad experiences that students bring from their own sociocultural history.

Second-language socialization The aim of language socialization research is to examine the transformation by which novice participants learn to use language and, in this process, are socialized through language into the practices of communities as well as the local meaning of these practices (Ochs 2002). At the core of this discipline lies an appreciation of learning as a dynamic, dialectical relationship obtaining between persons and their social environment. The approach depends upon access to observation of the naturally occurring discourse in which newcomers participate, with research sites normally chosen for their potential to reveal changes in the skills and capacities of apprentice participants. Language socialization researchers ideally employ longitudinal designs, collecting samples of learner participation considered representative of these settings, and using discourse analytic techniques of various kinds for the organization and examination of data. In the study abroad literature, language socialization research is as yet somewhat rare, and the temporal dimension required for documentation of development is absent from most of the studies that do exist. However, several researchers have investigated how learners interact in communicative settings abroad. This research permits an in-depth view of the communicative resources to


159

which students gain access in the communities where they are presumed to be engaged in learning. Language socialization research raises questions about the kinds of legitimacy that learners will claim and will be granted in their interactions with native speakers abroad. One way to understand this process is through the metaphor of learning as apprenticeship in a ‘community of practice.’ The community of practice is defined as ‘an aggregate of people who come together around mutual engagement in an endeavor’ (Eckert and McConnell-Ginet 1992: 464) and who share common assumptions and values along with the expertise required for participation in the activities of the collective. Communities of practice are ‘everywhere’ (Wenger 1998: 6) in homes, workplaces, schools, and in fact, in all the diverse settings where group identities coalesce. The extent to which their boundaries and activities are formalized is a matter of degree, but most communities of practice are neither named nor organized in explicit ways. Learning, in this view, is a matter of participation in the activities of the group and of forming identities in relation to the group. Importantly, admission into the group takes place through ‘legitimate peripheral participation’ (Lave and Wenger 1991) in which newcomers are granted access to observation, followed by increasingly active engagement in group practices and the power to change them. The participation of novices must be welcomed, and newcomers must be seen as potential members. If a particular individual is not considered legitimate, or if the individual elects not to participate, then learning may not become part of the picture. Ethnographic research demonstrates that different language communities have different ways of conceptualizing the participation of outsiders (Saville-Troike 2003). While some may offer full participation to novices, at least in principle, for others competence in the language of the community is considered too difficult, or even inappropriate, for foreigners. Therefore, participants in study abroad contexts may find themselves defined in advance as non-users of the host language, or as ill-equipped to develop high levels of competence in that language. In addition, this research considers the degree to which learning contexts offer access to ‘authentic’ foreign language use. One assumption underlying widespread professional endorsement of study abroad for language learning is that students will experience opportunities to participate in language use that is genuine, natural, and reflective of the host community’s norms. In the process of socialization, learners will gradually expand their communicative repertoire in the company of interlocutors who assist their performance, granting them legitimacy

160


based on the learners’ presumed status as potential group members (Lave and Wenger 1991). In light of the broader applied linguistics literature on language acquisition, language socialization, and identity, it is clear that extensive research on learner participation abroad might offer counter-evidence to these assumptions. In fact, the extant literature does provide glimpses of ways in which an idealistic view of language authenticity in study abroad may prove inadequate. For instance, the SLA literature on input and interaction documents the presence of simplified registers used by native or other expert speakers in interaction with persons deemed not-(yet)-competent (Ferguson 1977). Among these registers is ‘Foreigner Talk’ or adaptation and modification of discourse in interactions with non-native speakers whose level of language competence is considered low (e.g., Hatch, Shapira, and Gough 1978). Use of these registers may serve to promote communication, to establish relationships, and to teach (Hatch 1983), but also to mark status differentials in talking down to learners (Ellis 1986). Ellis (1997) distinguishes two types of foreigner talk: grammatical and ungrammatical. Grammatical foreigner talk is the norm, and displays features such as slowed delivery, avoidance of subordinate clauses or other complex grammatical forms, and elaboration to enhance the explicitness of messages. Ungrammatical foreigner talk indicates lack of respect on the part of interlocutors. Examples from English given by Ellis include deletions of grammatical features such as modal verbs (can, would), the copula be, and articles. By way of more precise example, Ellis provides the following illustrative utterances: Baseline: You won’t forget to buy the ice cream on your way home, will you? Ungrammatical foreigner talk: No forget buying ice cream, eh? Grammatical foreigner talk: The ice cream – You will not forget to buy it on your way home – Get it when you are coming home. All right? (Ellis 1997: 46) This research suggests the probability that study abroad participants will engage in interactions where the language in use is not of the baseline variety, but instead will include a range of varieties, and among these, features of Foreigner Talk. In most cases, if Ellis is correct, the intention underlying the use of Foreigner Talk will be beneficent. However, the grammaticality of the talk may depend on perceptions of the student’s status in a given interaction. In addition to variations traceable


161

to Foreigner Talk, learners may encounter other varieties of the language they are learning: varieties indexing regional, generational, or social-class distinctions. They may or may not receive assistance in determining how these variants contrast with the standard, and what their use in interaction means. As a result, they may not become aware that they are adding socially marked forms to their communicative repertoire. While the ‘input modifications’ (Ellis 1997: 46) characteristic of Foreigner Talk are issued by the learner’s interlocutor, it is also highly likely that students will bring a ‘discourse accent’ to their encounters abroad, one that emerges from their prior language socialization through classroom discourse. Kasper (1982), for example, examined teaching induced aspects of the interlanguage discourse. Kasper traced learners’ preference for propositional explicitness to the pedagogical practice of responding to instructors’ questions in complete sentences. The learners displayed a tendency to commit pragmatic violations through overstatement (e.g., Would you like to drink a glass of wine with me? where native speakers would prefer something like, How about a glass of wine?). The discourse styles of classroom interaction served to exacerbate learners’ penchant for excess clarity, in the interest of enhanced communication. This study raised the possibility, further explored in Wilkinson (2002), that classroom-oriented identities may be enacted in non-instructional contexts. Research on learners’ participation in the naturally occurring discursive practices of host communities includes studies in which the instructional context is implicated if not directly examined (Siegal 1996; Wilkinson 2002), and studies of the homestay. Communicative contexts within the homestay have been studied in general terms (Hashimoto 1993) and with particular focus on regularly occurring communication around family meals (Cook 2006; DuFon 2006; Iino 2006). While many of these studies do not include a longitudinal dimension, they all involve records and close scrutiny of the actual discourses in which participation takes place. In addition to clarifying precisely what linguistic resources are invoked, these studies shed considerable light on the processes by which learners are positioned, and position themselves, in the interactive settings of their host communities (Davies and Harré 1990). Siegal (1996) examined the acquisition of sociolinguistic competence by Mary, a Western woman learning Japanese. Situational variation in Japanese becomes particularly salient for English-speaking learners because social positioning is grammatically and lexically encoded in the

162


language in an ‘inescapable’ way (1996: 357). In other words, it is not possible to construct an appropriate utterance in Japanese without commenting on the social relationship between oneself and one’s interlocutor. Furthermore, language learning is bound up in the learner’s social position and attempts at maintaining interactional ‘face’ (Goffman 1967) while navigating power structures within social hierarchies. Mary was a white professional woman in her mid-40s, a highschool, Japanese teacher and advanced degree candidate at home in New Zealand. Mary’s first year-and-a-half long sojourn in Japan had taken place 20 years earlier. During the study, her government sponsored her enrollment in language courses at Hiroshima University. Mary’s case is extracted from a larger ethnographic project involving four learners and multiple data sources as well as analysis of extensive audio-taped conversational interaction between learners and native speakers. Siegal found that it was only in interactions with professors and in specific formal speech events that the learners had opportunities to exercise their nascent expertise in manipulating formal, honorific language use. In her desire to appear humble and polite in Japanese, Mary strategically adopted specific practices such as covering her mouth when speaking, and using conversational interjections contributing to her ‘shuffle’ style of communication (1996: 361). She was concerned about her mastery of pragmatics and made many attempts to learn about honorific language in particular, hiring a private tutor during her last month in Japan for the express purpose of reviewing honorific language use. Despite Mary’s efforts and good intentions, in the interaction analyzed by Siegal, between Mary and her professor, there were several ways in which her attempts to display a polite demeanor might have constituted pragmatic failure: face-threatening acts for the professor or mismatch of style and pragmatic intention. However, the awkwardness of Mary’s performance apparently did not cause the professor to become irritated or take offense. Siegal provides a detailed analysis of the performance and its interpretation, and proffers an explanation of the professor’s mild reaction in terms of expectations for the language competence of foreigners. Mary visited her advisor’s office in order to carry out several bureaucratic tasks, including obtaining his stamp on a document providing access to money for professional travel. Mary took charge of the talk, nominating all topics and controlling the conversation ‘as a means of maintaining her image as an earnest language learner and researcher on (almost) equal standing with the professor’ (1996: 367). In other


163

words, Mary actively resisted her positioning as a student, and tried to project an image of professional collegiality. After offering a gift for the professor’s child, and thus displaying her awareness of this Japanese custom, she then procured the necessary stamp, showed him information about an upcoming professional meeting, informed him that she would be leaving Japan for a conference, got the professor to agree that her language ability had improved, and ended the conversation by returning to a personal note, with discussion of her tutors. Siegal discerned several ways in which Mary’s incomplete mastery of Japanese pragmatics might have become problematic. For example, in closing the conversation, she thanked the professor with: chotto domo, sumimasen, arigato gozaimasu (‘, excuse me, thank you very much’). The utterance was delivered in a singing voice that connotes cheerfulness but that is associated with service personnel and not with formal, academic talk. In responding to a compliment on her improved Japanese that Mary had strategically extracted from the professor, she uses the form sumimasen (I’m sorry) to express politeness. This form is appropriate for acknowledging unexpected gifts, but not for reacting to compliments. Siegal also dwells at some length on Mary’s interpretation of the multifunctional epistemic modal desho, undermining and complicating the pragmatic force of her utterances. Desho is used to show reserve and, among women, to promote conversational harmony. Like many tag questions, desho mitigates the force of speech acts. However, it does not fit neatly into the category of a traditional hedge or tag since its use implies that the information conveyed is already known to the addressee. Therefore, desho should be avoided in conversation with a superior because it asks for confirmation of something that the superior is assumed to know already. Mary used this form in her conversation with the professor for a total of 10 times, and in none of these instances was her use of the form considered appropriate by native informants. For Mary, desho appears to have been conceptualized as showing politeness and fostering collegiality; it served as a strategic replacement of the honorific forms that she had not mastered. Siegal offered several examples of the ways in which Mary’s use of desho contributed to potential pragmatic difficulties. During the part of the conversation when she was presenting the professor with information about an upcoming conference, for example, this potential ‘face threat’ to the professor is embedded in an act that might well be interpreted as challenging his authority by questioning his awareness of events in his field of specialization.

164


M: kono. Ano, kono . . . umm, nani, um #institution# ano shitte imasu, ne. This, that, this . . . umm, what, um institution ano omoshiroi ano #international#, a: ano ∗ kyogi, ano mo sugu, ano, um narimasu Um, you know it, right? Um, there will be an interesting international conference there soon. P: a:so desu ka = Oh it that so. M: hai, ano, ju, jo, ichi, juichi gatsu no, su ju ichigatsu no, ano hajima ni = Yes, um, Nov, November, in the beginning of November. P: = a: (kogi) Oh, lecture M: tsuitachi, = so desu. Tsuiyachi kara a: The first, yes, from the first, uh: P: shitte imasu. Shitte imasu. I know about it. I know about it. M: a so desu ka. Ja, ano, #pre-conference workshop# no hoho ga, um, kono, kono, zasshi ni Oh. Well, um, the pre-conference workshop directions are in this magazine. P: kore desu. In this. M: hai, so. ja, dozo. Yes, well, go ahead, please look at it P: (xx) M: #and# . . . hai. Omoshiroi desho. And . . . yes, it’s interesting, isn’t it. (Siegal 1996: 370–371) As this segment drew to a close, Mary handed the professor the conference information and used desho in an utterance whose pragmatic force was to confirm a shared understanding of her perspective on the interest level of the conference. Since the interaction was not video-recorded, Siegal could not tell whether or not the professor then provided non-verbal conversational feedback to Mary as she continued talking. However, he did not provide the conversational back chanelling known as aizuchi whose absence is unnatural for the flow of Japanese conversation. This suggests to the author that the professor may have been ill at ease at the way he was positioned by Mary’s Omoshiroi desho.


165

The native-speaking informants reviewing the tape in fact stated that a more deferential utterance, including honorific forms, might have been something like: sensei ga kyomi o o mochi ka to omoimashite (I thought you might be interested in this). At no point in the conversation did the professor offer to correct Mary’s Japanese, and in fact, at the end of her sojourn he wrote a glowing letter of recommendation for her in which her language skill received high praise. In light of the obvious difficulties that Mary experienced in attempting a formal conversation, there was something more going on in this scenario than objective evaluation of Mary’s language skill. The explanation that Siegal proposed is quite simply that foreigners were not expected to display high levels of language ability in Japanese, and that honorific language in particular was considered to be beyond their capability. Siegal cited global political and economic factors of the 1970s and 1980s contributing to the formation of a large Western population desirous of learning Japanese. These events took place on a backdrop of notions, formed over time, informing expectations about Japanese-language competence for white Westerners. Although Siegal claimed that the practice of framing Japanese-speaking Westerners as henna gaijin (strange foreigners) was no longer in vogue, there was still ‘a belief among some native speakers that Japanese is a difficult language and if any westerner can say anything in Japanese, it is an accomplishment’ (1996: 363). Professional language educators told several participants that their status as foreigners exempted them from learning honorific language. Siegal also cited a project funded by the National Language Institute to design an abbreviated version of Japanese intended for foreigners, in which only one register would be taught. Even if some learners may appreciate efforts to simplify the task of acquiring proficiency in Japanese, for Siegal this combination of factors amounted to institutionally sponsored limitations on learners’ capacities and to a ‘foreigner identity’ arising from participation in the very speech events most likely to assist learners in developing a situationally appropriate repertoire. Invoking Bourdieu’s metaphor of language resources as cultural capital (1991), Siegal critiqued the situation as follows: ‘Not concentrating on pragmatic language ability in classroom teaching and ignoring pragmatic inappropriateness in everyday interactions is a “cost” to the learner and disables the learner’ (1996: 376). Admittedly, all the practices described in Siegal’s article were in flux, and subject to change. It is not clear that practices documented in the early 1990s have persisted more than a decade later. However, this study offers data-enhanced evidence to show that language learners

166


abroad – including those who have a long-term commitment to secondlanguage proficiency – may not be readily interpreted as potential members of their host communities and may be consistently positioned in interaction in accordance with an outsider’s status. While Siegal’s study deals primarily with the deleterious effects of students’ positioning as foreigners by educators and institutions, a study by Wilkinson (2002) illustrates the possibility that learners abroad may limit their own interactive repertoires, in this case through over-reliance on the classroom role of student. Wilkinson’s analysis confirms the observation of Miller and Ginsburg (1995) on the significant impact of ‘folklinguistic theories’ held by language learners abroad. In a project affiliated with the ACTR/NFLC study, Language Learning in Study Abroad: The Case of Russian, Miller and Ginsburg took an interest in the consequences of students’ views of language and of language learning. They studied both the explicit statements and the somewhat less-conscious employment of conceptual metaphors used by students in comments on language acquisition. Of greatest concern to these authors is the students’ tendency to ‘carry a duplicate of their pedagogical world into interactions with native speakers, implicitly recreating the classroom in other, diverse cultural settings’ (1995: 312). In the learner journals under scrutiny, language consisted of words and syntax, organized according to a system of fixed rules unfailingly enforcing only one correct way to say things. Language learning was akin to solving a puzzle or conducting an experiment. In the ‘puzzle’ metaphor, words and phrases are the ‘pieces’ and it is the task of the learner to determine what ‘fits’ (1995: 306). Figuring out if the puzzle had been solved involved testing out potential solutions on nativespeaking subjects. Thus, the focus tended to remain on the form of the language not on the larger issue of language as a communicative resource. Native speakers functioned to approve or reject proposed formal combinations of words and syntax, much as the teacher might do in a canonical classroom interaction: There is an interesting paradox in the students’ treatment of native speakers as participants in their language learning experiments. They habitually denigrate the usefulness of spending time on these kinds of activities in the classroom during their stay abroad, and universally celebrate the benefits of out-of-class interaction with native speakers, yet in these very interactions they set about recreating the rejected pedagogical environment. (Miller and Ginsburg 1995: 307)


167

Wilkinson (2002) examined audio-taped conversations recorded by four participants in the context of their homestay environment. The students were instructed to try to capture a naturally occurring conversation at a time when they would normally chat with a member of their adoptive family. They were assured that the topic of the conversation should be open, and that the purpose of the recording was not assessment of their proficiency. In each of the four conversations recorded, Wilkinson found evidence that instructional norms of interaction were present. Native-speaking interlocutors tended to enact the role of teacher, performing ‘other initiated repair’ sequences not characteristic of informal conversation (Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks 1977), even in cases where the trouble source had not caused difficulty in the transmission of a message: Sitting outside in the courtyard before dinner, Heather was recounting Saturday evening’s adventures ‘à le concert d’Aerosmith’ to her host parents and me. Her host father smiled, ‘Heather, il faut faire encore un stage ici – ‘à le,’ c’est pas français, ça’ (Heather, you need to do another session here – ‘à le,’ that’s not French), referring to the obligatory contraction of à and le in French to au. Heather stopped mid-sentence and paused. ‘Il te faut rester encore un mois’ (You need to stay another month), her host father repeated with the same twinkle in his eye, ‘à le,’ c’est pas français.’ ‘Oh!’ Heather giggled a little, eyes averted, ‘au concert.’ (Wilkinson 2002: 159) When host family members neither controlled the topic nor focused on repair, Wilkinson observed that the student participants often introduced aspects of classroom discourse management into their conversations anyway. For example, in interacting with her host mother, Amelia reproduced the prototypical initiation-response-evaluation (IRE) sequence of teacher talk: AS: NS: AS: NS: AS:

.hhh! qu’est-ce que tu as fait aujourd’hui? (Initiation) .hhh! aujourd’hui j’ai étudié mon anglais?, (Response) oui?! [oui:::! ] [ah c’est très] bien?, . . . (Evaluation)

168


AS: .hhh! what did you do today? NS: .hhh! today I studied my English?, AS: yes?! NS: [yes::s:: ] AS: [ah that’s very] good?, . . . (Wilkinson 2002: 163) This example along with others from Wilkinson’s data suggested thatstudents appeal to structurally familiar classroom discourse patterns when attempting to engage in second-language conversation. This strategy was invoked whenever the students found themselves navigating unfamiliar conversational territory; if the native-speaking partner would not adopt a pedagogical role, then the student would do so herself. For the students involved in Wilkinson’s study, intermediate or beginning level learners in their first in-country stay, French was above all a school subject, and the performance known as ‘speaking French’ entailed specific discourse patterns emulating the communicative classroom. The study abroad setting provided their first significant opportunity to become involved in non-pedagogical interaction. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that these students tended to position themselves in ways consistent with their prior socialization in instructional settings. However, ‘these students’ heavy reliance on the roles and norms of the instructional environment was limiting at best and often inappropriate in out-of-class conversations.’ (2002: 168) What influence might the classroom-based discourse accent exert in the formation of broader perceptions? Will native speakers perceive these students in negative ways, and eventually avoid talking with them? Will the students begin to frame native speakers as uncooperative conversation partners? Amelia, one of the participants in Wilkinson’s study, did in fact interpret her interactions with the host family as condescending, citing the family’s tendency to treat her like a ‘little kid’ (2002: 168); as a result, this student eventually turned down opportunities for further interaction with the family in favor of evenings out with other Americans. Another student, Ashley, recruited a 10-year-old host brother (Girard) in order to meet the requirements of the project. She then asked Girard a series of semantically hollow, unmotivated questions that seemed designed to prove that she could talk and not to express interest in Girard’s point of view. Ashley interpreted this event as a frustrating encounter with an uncooperative child. Both Wilkinson’s and Siegal’s research implicate the instructional environment in the process of language socialization. For Mary, a


169

relatively mature student with considerable proficiency in Japanese, institutionalized benign neglect of sociolinguistics had contributed to limitations on her pragmatic competence. The participants in Wilkinson’s study were more typical of the US-based college-age study abroad population, displaying comparatively lower second-language proficiency and general intercultural expertise. Yet these students, too, showed evidence that their history of classroom language socialization exerted a powerful effect on their ability to converse in French, and to exploit the study abroad environment for expansion of their discursive repertoires. Both of these studies offer intriguing implications for classroom practice. They reinforce and illustrate in vivid detail the well-established notion that there is a deeply ingrained if not inevitable disjuncture between the practices of classrooms and the communicative needs of learners in ‘real life’ settings. Calls for expansion of classroom discourse options (e.g., Kramsch 1985) and for attention to the pragmatic aspects of learner ability (e.g., Scarcella 1983; Edmondson 1986) have been characteristic of the language education literature for at least several decades. The research of Siegal and Wilkinson make it clear that, in an ideal world, these calls would be heeded in the principled design of programs incorporating study abroad. Turning now to additional ‘real life’ settings where learners’ participation has been studied, we examine investigations of naturally occurring interactions in homestay situations, beginning with Hashimoto’s (1993) descriptive study examining the natural discourse of Japanese interlocutors and an Australian high-school student on a year-long exchange. Hashimoto’s participant was a 16-year-old female who stayed with four host families during her year abroad, each for a period of three months. While in Japan, she attended a public high school, participating in regular classes and receiving instruction in Japanese language for two hours each week, with additional language tuition on Saturday afternoons. During the last month of her stay in Japan, she was audio recorded in five interactional settings representing the kinds of situations in which she normally participated (family dinner, game-playing, a party, and tea with older women whom she had not previously met). These settings reflected a variety of formality levels and included interlocutors of diverse age, gender, and relationship to the family. She was also interviewed 14 months after her return to Australia and enrollment in a Japanese-language course there. Rather than attempting to trace the student’s language development over the course of the year, then, Hashimoto’s study offers a sample of the student’s interactions occurring after the early stages of her language development abroad, from

170


which hypotheses about the developmental resources of the homestay situation may be derived. The students’ homestay environment appears to have been rich in opportunities both for direct assistance in performance and for observation of language use and language socialization of younger family members. The student displayed high levels of awareness of linguistic and metalinguistic issues, frequently raising topics related to proper usage and to the meaning of unfamiliar expressions. The members of the family responded, whenever possible, taking up these topics and allowing her time to rephrase and otherwise negotiate comprehension. In the context of a family dinner conversation, for example, the family counseled her on the use of polite style in a formal speech she was to deliver at school. When the student mentioned her reluctance to use this style, the family emphasized its appropriateness for the context in question, and provided illustrative examples from the use of honorifics on television. In adult-centered conversation, the student was provided with opportunities to observe the use of language by participants of varying age, gender, and status and to note links between interactional context and choice of linguistic variety. Although at the time her own repertoire did not move beyond the plain style she used with the immediate family, these encounters demonstrated the relevance of stylistic variation and led her to observe that use of dialect in conversation with elders was ‘rude’ (1993: 219) and that ‘elderly people’s way of speaking was different from young people’s’ (1993: 219). As illustrated in data from game-playing interactions, the student was also party to the process of first-language socialization of a younger family member and as it takes place in adolescence. In the first instance, the nine-year-old host sister incorrectly used the form chan after her own name, thus committing a deviation from the Japanese norm and receiving rapid correction from her mother, who then engaged the student in discussion of the correction. In another case, the mother and two host brothers discussed the use of slang. The discussion was launched as student directed some slang expressions to herself while playing a computer game, and her use of this language was judged inappropriate by the younger brother. The mother intervened to propose situations in which the student’s usage would in fact be acceptable. Thus, the study opens the intriguing possibility that in addition to receiving direct guidance on their own language use, a homestay guest may also become ‘a participant observer of the corrective processes which pertain to first language acquisition by the children in the host family’ (1993: 219).


171

One unique feature of Hashimoto’s study is the inclusion of a longitudinal perspective enabled by interviewing the student one year after her return from Japan. On returning to Australia, the student had switched high schools in order to continue her study of the language, but otherwise had little opportunity to converse in Japanese. The researcher notes a decrease in her fluency accompanied by an ability to speak in a more polite way and a consciousness of her mixing of plain and polite styles. When queried on the absence of dialectal forms in her speech, the student replied that she could understand these forms but that she preferred to employ the standard, a choice encouraged by her teacher and supported by observation of Japanese-language use in Australia. For Hashimoto, host families ‘can provide a very valuable linguistic and sociocultural environment’ (1993: 223). Although the participant had almost no experience of Japanese-language study prior to her departure, after one year she could communicate reasonably well in the language. Elucidation of the homestay advantage emerged in this study from close examination of the practices in which the student was engaged, where ample linguistic input was complemented by the student’s strong interest in language and by the families’ considerable investment of time and effort in assisting her learning. Since the student was shown to adopt polite style in her speech only after her language use was scrutinized and critiqued in the context of later, academic study, this research also confirms the long-term nature of sociolinguistic development, its sensitivity to local, contextual resources, and the value of well-articulated links between classroom learning and study abroad. In the report on this study, Hashimoto described the discourse in which the student participated, but did not give extended, transcribed examples. Three additional studies of language socialization practices in Japanese and Indonesian homes (DuFon and Churchill 2006) do provide further detail on the precise nature of interactions as well as additional, more cautionary tales involving students at the college level. Iino (2006) investigated the underlying norms of interaction, including expected participant roles, in homestay settings connected with an eight-week intensive summer program for American students in Kyoto. The researcher employed a ‘remote observation method’ (2006: 156) in which 30 dinner table conversations between the students and their host families were video-recorded. Iino also collected data from various other sources, including questionnaires on impressions of the homestay, interviews with all parties, learner journals, and evaluations. The Japanese hosts were established middle to upper-middle class families with experience in hosting foreigners or in travel abroad. Many of the

172


families included at least one member with advanced competence in English. The families reported that they normally spoke Kyoto dialect together at home. For most of the students, undergraduates with two to three years of formal instruction in Japanese, the program represented their first visit to Japan. As the arriving students were paired with their hosts at Osaka International Airport, the director of the program made a speech in which the host families were enjoined to regard the American students as their new sons or daughters, and to ‘get along with them’ (2006: 158). Notwithstanding this attempt to set a tone of immediate intimacy, the participants had no genuine role models, as their status within the family was indeterminate. All parties experienced role and identity confusion along with difficulty in selecting the interactional norms that Iino intended to study. Eventually, they settled into roles along a continuum stretching from the ‘cultural dependency approach’ to the ‘two-way enrichment’ ideal (2006: 161). In the cultural dependency approach, the students were construed as deficient care-receivers, requiring massive assistance in managing everyday life in Japan. In some cases the provision of instruction in the ways of Japanese culture was not well received and even taken as interference with the main purpose of the program: They showed me how to do the tea ceremony, how to do calligraphy, and how to do flower arrangements every night after dinner, which made me crazy. I didn’t have time to study. I’ve already done those kinds of things and I’m not really interested in them. I’m here to study Japanese which I can use for business in the future. (Iino 2006: 162) In its extreme form, this approach yielded situations in which the visitors were interpreted as exotic gaijin (‘foreigner’) family ‘pets’ and complained that they were treated like ‘babies or dolls’ (2006: 162). According to another student: I was a pet in the home. As long as I appreciated whatever they did, everyone was happy even though I didn’t speak well. (Iino 2006: 162) Iino observed that the role of gaijin is well recognized among the longer-term foreign residents in Japan he polled, as a tactic for avoidance of censure over issues of politeness and language use. One of the


173

participants in the study quickly understood that he could work the situation to his advantage by playing the role of a totally ignorant clown, with no awareness of Japanese cultural norms. The ‘two-way enrichment’ model emerged when the families saw the homestay arrangement as a learning opportunity for themselves, and therefore viewed their visitors as providers of language and cultural resources. In these cases, the family dinner hour became a time when culturally bound perceptions were brought to light and, occasionally, modified. In one of Iino’s examples, the student Steve received instruction on Japanese cuisine while giving his hosts (mother, father, and son) a pronunciation lesson in American English, which avoids pronunciation of the ‘h’ in herb: Steve: sore nan desu ka what is that? HM: kore shiso, anata ga tabete iru no wa kore to kore o mikkusu shita desho, kore wa shiso this, shiso, what you are eating is a mixture of this and this, this is shiso Steve: shiso HM: a kind of habu, habu Steve: herb? HM: haabu Steve: herb, herb HM: haabu Steve: eich (‘H’) HM: wa hatsuon shinai you don’t pronounce the ‘H’! HS: sinai, no no? HM: honto, ah, so Really, I see HF: habu kyandi kato omotta, herb candy nan da I thought ‘habu’ candy but should be ‘herb’ candy, I see HM: ah, so, iya, tekkiri habu kato, nihongo de habu Ah, right. I had no doubt about the pronunciation ‘habu,’ in Japanese. It is ‘habu’ (Iino 2006: 163–164) The families tended to avoid correction of grammatical errors and instances of sociolinguistic inappropriateness. Instead, both errors and

174


attempts to display awareness of sociolinguistic convention were perceived as ‘cute’ (2006: 166). One student, for example, used a ‘highly culture-bound’ formulaic expression to accompany the presentation of a gift: tsumaranai mono desu kedo douzo (‘this is a useless thing, but please accept it’). The family’s first reaction was to laugh, in part because the expression is generally reserved for formal interactions among fully adult members of society, and in part because the student’s use of the expression violated their belief that the humbleness conveyed therein is unique to the Japanese. The families tended to code-switch away from Kyoto dialect in their interactions with students, preferring the more standardized Tokyo dialect. This practice, according to the author, contributed to false impressions of linguistic homogeneity within Japan which then informed the students’ negative assessments of Kyoto dialect when its use was unavoidable. Additionally, the families practiced overaccommodation, modifying their language through the use of Foreigner Talk. Iino condemns assumptions about the authenticity of homestay language use as naïve: the belief that only standard, idealized Japanese is used around family dinner tables is both misleading and inaccurate. Rather, ‘language use in these situations is indeed dynamic and colorful,’ and involves both multiple varieties and simplified forms ‘unlike the model Japanese dialogues found in language textbooks’ (2006: 170–171). Iino documents a range of ways in which student participants may be positioned as guests in Japanese homes, and echoes Siegal’s (1996) concern about the impact of a gaijin identity specific to this context, in which all parties conspire to exempt students from advanced-level language learning. Iino’s interest in the precise qualities of language use also brings up complex questions around regional and situational linguistic variety in homestay settings, suggesting that students might be better able to cope if they were made aware of the potential for encountering sociolinguistic diversity in their encounters with hosts. Further insight into the specific nature of the gaijin identity emerges from Cook’s (2006) study analyzing joint construction of folk beliefs during dinnertime conversations in Japanese homestay settings. Cook examined the socialization processes emerging from Iino’s ‘two-way enrichment’ model. This investigation was explicitly linked to the tradition, within language socialization research, of examining everyday storytelling as ‘a fundamental means of construction of social identity’ (2006: 120). Across diverse cultures, storytelling during family dinnertime talk has been shown to represent a routine ‘opportunity space’


175

(Ochs, Smith, and Taylor 1989: 238) nurturing the social and cultural development of both children and adults. Children learn how to present themselves in culturally appropriate ways while developing the ability to adopt multiple perspectives and to think critically. For all family members, the dinner table offers occasions to participate in the joint construction of shared theories, perspectives, emotions, and stances. Cook assumed that folk beliefs are likely to be challenged when members of other cultural groups are present. Specifically, the author considered the impact of nihonjiron, a pervasive ideology in which the Japanese are assigned enduring uniqueness, especially in comparison to the Western world. According to the author, this ideology creates a sharp dichotomy between Japanese and Westerners, permeating folk beliefs based on stereotypes. According to this ideology, foreigners are incapable of adaptation to Japanese ways: the Japanese cuisine is so unique that foreigners cannot appreciate it, and the Japanese language is so difficult that no foreigner can master it. Cook closely examined both the telling of folk beliefs and the ways in which these beliefs were challenged at homestay family dinner tables. Data included 22 audio- and videotaped conversations recorded without the researcher’s presence, involving eight learners of Japanese as a foreign language and their host families residing in the Tokyo area. The participants were of varying nationality (British, Korean, or American) and proficiency levels, but they were all college students enrolled in a year-long Japanese-language program. The corpus of language-use data thus obtained was transcribed and subjected to an analysis in which folk beliefs were identified and catalogued by topic. The researcher also tabulated instances where folk beliefs were challenged, and by whom. The telling of folk beliefs was a common occurrence, with 52 examples in the corpus. The most frequent topics raised were food and eating habits, social customs, and language, which together account for 44 of the examples, or 84.5 percent of the total. In bringing up these topics, the speaker – almost always a host family member – often expressed a folk belief in the uniqueness of the Japanese, consistent with nihonjiron. About half the time, these assertions were challenged, most often by the student guest, but there were also episodes where no challenge was recorded. Cook provided the following example in which the student participant, Rick, downplayed his ‘othered’ position by aligning himself with his host mother’s views. Here, the topic was the importance of adapting to the cultural practices of one’s hosts, and the example under scrutiny was eating nattoo (fermented soybeans), a foodstuff that

176


normally goes unappreciated by foreigners. Rick liked to eat nattoo, and was therefore considered unusual. Perhaps with a hint of irony, Rick responded by cloaking himself with the somewhat objectionable mantle of ‘strange foreigner’ (henna gaijin): HM: demo nattoo ga suki na n te ne? But that you like nattoo R: un uh huh HM: mezurashii ne? ((laugh)) is unusual, isn’t it? R: ((whispers)) henna gaijin a strange foreigner HS: henna gaijin a strange foreigner R: ((laugh)) HM: henna gaijin ((laugh)) a strange foreigner (Cook 2006: 143) With challenges came the opportunity for joint creation of a new perspective. In another example involving Rick, the host family was discussing mad cow disease and the potential consequences of that problem in the United States, where Americans were believed to subsist primarily on beef. Here, the family built a case for a clear distinction between Americans and the Japanese, who can live without meat, but Rick offers a counter-example from his own experience, obliging the family to acknowledge exceptions to their generalization: HM: gyuuniku no ne? suteeki toka ooi desho? I guess you eat a lot of beefsteak? R: un (5.0) demo gyuu yori tori niku taberu uh but we eat more chicken than beef. HM: a- soo = Is that so? R: = to omou (.) un I think (.) uh huh HM: [un mhmm R: [boku no kazoku wa my family


HM: HB: R: HB: HM: R: HM: R: HM:

177

un uh huh kenkoo dakara desho? because it’s healthy? un unn? (.) un uh huh (.) yeah. dakara abura ga sukunai So it’s less greasy aa sokka (2.0) ie de tsukuru toki wa okaasan Oh yeah (2.0) when your mother cooks at home un aa tsukau? yeah, un she uses it. un (.) mhmm anowelltoriniku o tsukau She uses chicken. (Cook 2006: 139)

Dinnertime conversations represented a socialization process for all parties. Japanese host family members consciously examined their folk beliefs and cultural assumptions, becoming aware of perspectives different from their own. For the students, dinnertime talk afforded opportunities to become socialized into the discourse of nihonjiron, that is, to understand a deeply rooted ideological source of folk beliefs, and to consciously chose identity options, such as Rick’s ironic self-denigration, in response to one’s positioning within these discourses. This study illuminates the sources of the foreigner identity whose negative consequences are commented by Siegal (1996) and Iino (2006). Perhaps more significantly, in closely examining the details of intercultural interaction, this study offered precise information on the process of learning through ideological conflict, and therefore presented a realistic and ultimately somewhat optimistic view of interactions in homestay settings. In DuFon’s study of the socialization of taste in Indonesia (2006), the significance of insights to be derived grows in proportion to the specificity of thematic focus. This author examined just one theme in the interactions of student participants at host family dinner tables. Taste is a system of values acquired early in life, and includes actual food preferences as well as discourses surrounding the value and meaning of food (e.g., as nutrition, or as a pleasure source). When adults enter

178


a new cultural setting, they encounter an unfamiliar cuisine accompanied by discourse conveying values and attitudes about food that may be equally mysterious. DuFon examined the thematic dimensions of taste and the features of food-related discourse in the Indonesian homes of study abroad participants. Because the study was longitudinal in design, DuFon was also equipped to provide insight on changes in the participants’ beliefs and values emerging from this socialization process. The study was based on extensive ethnographic and narrative data gathered over a period of five years, through the author’s own multiple sojourns in Indonesia and in a separate project involving five other study abroad participants. Data relevant to the socialization of taste included the author’s diary as well as the journals of the other participants, and transcripts of 17 naturalistic interactions between the students and their hosts. DuFon was careful to stipulate that she did not initially set out to record dinner table conversations, in part because families do not always eat together in Javanese Indonesia, where traditional homes do not have specific areas designated for dining and food is set out, allowing family members to serve themselves and eat alone. Moreover, the participants were advised against eating with their host families, as this activity had tended to generate intercultural misunderstanding in the past. Nevertheless, when asked to record informal conversations, DuFon’s participants favored the dinner table, and in fact commented that this setting had been particularly useful for language practice. Six themes emerged from the discourse on food in these data. These included orientation to the food, food as pleasure, food as a social identity marker, food as gifts, food as a material good, and food as health. Of the six, orientation to the food most closely resembled a traditional language lesson. Since the food itself was unfamiliar to the participants, they required information about the names of dishes and ingredients as well as descriptions of the dishes and the proper way to eat them. For example, as Bruce’s host mother labeled foods and ingredients, Bruce engaged in talk bearing a marked resemblance to a pattern drill: Bruce: Saya senang. Apa namanya? I like this. What is it called? HM: Jagung Corn. Bruce: Jagung saya? Just corn?


179

HM: Dadar jagung. Corn pancake. Bruce: Dadar. Pancake HM: Dadar jagung. Corn pancake Bruce: (Dadar jagung) (Corn pancake) HM: Ada dadar telor. There is egg pancake. Bruce: Hm HM: Tapi ini jagung- Ini ja-. Itu jagung dicampur telor. But this is corn- This is co- that is corn mixed with egg. (DuFon 2006: 98) In other interactions, students were socialized in various ways to appreciate Indonesian views on the pleasure to be derived from eating. They were given explicit lessons on the taste of food, encouraged to partake of meals, and warned about foods, particularly spicy dishes, that their hosts believed they would find unpleasant. They were also counseled on appropriate compliments and their timing, and they were confronted with unfamiliar norms of interaction around the criticism of food. Whereas in the United States it would be considered highly impolite for guests to directly criticize the food they are served, according to DuFon, in Indonesia the pleasure principle overrides any reservations that participants may feel about speaking their mind on this topic. In the interest of improving the food in the future, guests routinely criticize culinary preparation with a directness that the author had found ‘shocking’ during her own early stay (2006: 105). For instance, when Bruce prepared a spaghetti dinner for a family he had come to know, their reaction to his effort was not in the least ambiguous: Wawan:

Mengapa hambar Bruce? Why is it tasteless, Bruce? Bruce: Apa? [Hambar? What? [Hambar? Wawan: [(Hambar. [(Tasteless. Memang) hambar. Hambar. Indeed) tasteless. Tasteless.)

180


[Rasanya panas (xx terlalu asin) Hambar. [It’s a hot taste (xx too salty). Tasteless. (DuFon 2006: 106) Although it is fairly clear that Bruce did not understand the word hambar at the time, he understood right away that the family did not like his spaghetti. This impression was confirmed the following day when the spaghetti reappeared in a new guise, recooked and served in an Indonesian style. In contrast to the effect of similar episodes on other students, Bruce’s ego was not wounded, perhaps because he had little investment in self-expression through cookery. Instead, he appreciated the ‘degree of closeness’ (2006: 107) indicated by the family members decision to have their own way with his pasta dish. Ultimately, ‘this treatment of food as pleasure and the kind of discourse surrounding it had a positive effect on the learners, causing them to change both the way in which they viewed food and the ways in which they talked about it’ (2006: 108). In other interactions, the learners received information about the relationship between food preferences and ethnic, religious, or regional identities, thus gaining insider awareness of diversity within Indonesia. They were also party to many interactions involving gift-giving customs, particularly oleh-oleh, or the practice of offering gifts of regional specialty foods upon returning from a trip. Dinner table conversations included reference to such gifts, and thereby helped the students to understand which types of gifts are appropriate. Lesser themes in the data include food as a material good, particularly the economic aspects of food value, and the relationship of food to health. As evidence of longer-term second-language socialization, DuFon cites her own accommodation to an Indonesian belief that had originally conflicted with the beliefs of her culture of origin: the notion that eating fried foods and seasonal fruits, or drinking iced beverages, will aggravate a cough. The few extant studies on mealtime socialization practices abroad indicate that the dinner table ‘offers many opportunities for learning through the use of language about a culture’s values, beliefs, attitudes, and view of food, and for learning to use language in certain ways to talk about food’ (2006: 118). DuFon recommended that learners be placed in homestay situations where they may regularly eat with their hosts. She argued for the value of awareness raising about the culinary habits and culture of food in the host country, and about the learner’s own culturally situated taste preferences. In addition, she suggested that learners


181

be enjoined to discover and appreciate the ethnic and cultural diversity of their host country, and that they consider in advance how they will respond to questions about their home country, often based on food-related stereotypes held by the hosts. In studies of language socialization practices in study abroad, the interplay of learner identity and local social and cultural norms is portrayed in fine detail, yielding insight useful for cultivating an understanding of how languages are learned, and what the functional relationship of language and culture looks like on the ground, in practice. In these studies, it is no longer possible to abstract language away from culture: cultural practices are seen to be deeply embedded, conveyed, embodied, and negotiated within the use of language (Agar 1994). In the studies of Japanese language learning dominating this literature, the issue of an interactively constructed foreigner identity emerges in almost every case. Whereas Siegal (1996) criticized the degree to which advanced-level learners must struggle for access to sociolinguistic appropriateness in formal interactions, Iino (2006) pointed out that this identity may well begin in the homestay. Furthermore, being interpreted as a gaijin constitutes a kind of safe haven for some students who, socialized into discourses of nihonjiron, prefer to employ their socially sanctioned outsider status as a kind of insurance policy deflecting criticism. In other words, these learners are led by the socialization process toward strategic cultivation of communicative incompetence. Cook (2006) showed that students either challenge or jointly construct folk beliefs related to nihonjiron, that is, they confront this ideology within specific interactions where they are provided opportunities to develop a personal stance in relation to it. By focusing on learners’ self-positioning in discourse, Wilkinson’s study (2002) is a powerful reminder of the long-term and multi-directional nature of language socialization. This study demonstrated a strong influence of prior language socialization on the early, entry phases of socialization abroad that may come to define the experience for participants in short-term programs. By adhering to the norms of classroom interaction, these students shaped and constrained their own learning opportunities in ways consistent with the ‘folklinguistic theories’ of Americans (Miller and Ginsburg 1995). A comparison of these studies reveals considerable variation in focal scale and methodology. Only one (DuFon 2006) included a true longitudinal dimension showing that participation in locally situated communicative practices yielded growth and change in the learners’ awareness and use of Indonesian norms. The other studies employed various methods of principled sampling for in-depth description of socialization

182


practices. In their published versions, these studies often sampled data from larger, ethnographic investigations. Siegal’s (1996) article situated one conversation between a learner and a professor within an ethnographic study of four learners. Similarly, Wilkinson (2002) was based on four conversations in homestay settings recorded by participants in a larger qualitative study. Hashimoto (1993) offered insight on a range of communicative settings typical of one learner’s homestay, and presented a positive assessment emphasizing the range of resources available in these diverse situations. Both Iino (2006) and Cook (2006) included comparatively larger population of learners but narrowed their focus to the family dinner table. An emphasis on the particular nature of these interactions showed that both cooperation and conflict can be present as learners encounter worldviews different from their own; that is, the mere presence of interactive resources can hardly be considered to constitute the whole story. These studies are as yet few in number, and, in parallel with the general literature on language learning abroad, they pose more questions than they answer. The questions are, however, of a different kind, enabled by research committed to particularizing its findings rather than to the search for universally applicable generalizations. They have to do less with prediction of measurable outcomes than with further understanding of the learning resources present and the nature of developmental processes unfolding in study abroad contexts. For example, we still have very little information that would guide educators in assessing the so-called ‘authenticity’ of language use with learners abroad, and in preparing students to cope with linguistic variation. In addition to unfamiliar discourse conventions, it seems logical that learners will encounter various ways in which the natural use of language will stray from the standard forms enshrined in language textbooks. Iino’s data (2006) included episodes in which native-speaking interlocutors modified their language use to accommodate learners, but also strained under a self-imposed rejection of their local dialect and in fact used this dialect anyway. We do not know very much about the qualities of language addressed to learners, if this language reflects Ellis’s baseline (1997), or if it is Foreigner Talk. We know even less about how learners’ folklinguistic theories (Miller and Ginsburg 1995), if they stipulate one correct way of saying things, will interact with exposure to sociolinguistic variation and accompanying attitudes and ideologies. We are uninformed about variation in folklinguistic theories by context: How might the theories and practices described for American learners (Miller and Ginsburg 1995; Wilkinson 2002) contrast with those invoked by students for


183

whom multilingualism is a natural habitat (Murphy-Lejeune 2002)? Some studies, however, suggest that students’ experiences abroad may be shaped by their prior socialization into specific ideologies of gender and nationality.

Gender, nationality, and language socialization abroad In addition to studies of language socialization, the qualitative literature includes a number of studies in which the stances of students abroad are explored in relation to gender and nationality. Whereas elsewhere in the literature gender is framed as a biological variable, and nationality an unexplored social variable, here there is a commitment to understanding the relationship between language learning, the experience of study abroad, and student’s perceptions based on these identity categories. Given the recent postructuralist framing of identity as a mutable, contested process (Norton 2000), these studies open the possibility that gender, nationality, and language learning are tightly connected in the ways that students construct learning experiences. Looking in from the periphery of host communities, and finding that their own identities are interpreted in unfamiliar ways, students abroad discover the feelings of ambivalence that can characterize movement across sociocultural borders. They find their own sense of identity destabilized as new experience ‘serves to upset taken-for-granted points of reference’ (Block 2007b: 864), and they may struggle, to some degree, to reconcile differences between their own practices and those of their host community. Unlike immigrants, however, study abroad participants know that any allegiance to their new communities can be temporary. They may, if they so desire, opt to close down the process of language socialization in favor of renewed affiliation with their home societies. In this process, they may devote considerable effort to justifying this choice through judgmental criticism of the host country’s practices. The literature on gender and nationality in study abroad illustrates the point that identity is traceable to its historical sources (Pavlenko and Blackledge 2004); it consists of the specific social and discursive options validated in a given society at a given time, and used by groups and individuals for self-naming and for staking claims on social rights and responsibilities. When students go abroad, they may encounter different ways of performing gender, and they may find that their gender influences the ways they are positioned in interactions (Davies and Harré 1990) in unfamiliar ways. Similarly, they may find that their national identity influences the ways in which they are ‘located in conversation’

184


(Davies and Harré 1990: 20) and they may devote significant reflective energy to positioning themselves as representatives of their home countries. With a few exceptions (Siegal 1996; Ogulnick 1998; 1999), this research does not document major transformations or long-term identity conflicts, and students are shown to develop second-languagemediated identities only in a limited way (Block 2007a). However, the research gives voice to the idiosyncratic but very real experiences of individual students and host community members, and provides useful information about students’ successful and unsuccessful attempts to gain access to communities of practice abroad.

Gender A review of studies on gender and study abroad reveals the extent to which this literature is shaped by its own sociocultural context. As elsewhere, the research base over-represents the United States, and includes three studies illustrating the sexual harassment of American women in Russia (Polanyi 1995), Spain (Talburt and Stewart 1999), and Costa Rica (Twombly 1995), one study of the preferential treatment accorded to a male Japanese student in the United States (Churchill 2005), and one study relating the comments of US-based students in France to American ideologies of gender (Kinginger 2008). From outside the United States comes only one study in which gender is a salient theme: Patron’s (2007) investigation of French students in Australia, where the absence of ‘sexual harassment’ provoked negative reactions from female students. American women abroad perceive that they are positioned as sexual objects or as lesser participants in social interaction. To recall, in the earliest qualitative study cited in this volume, Francine Schumann (1980) re-analyzed her diary of study abroad in Iran, citing the extent to which learning opportunities were out of bounds for her as a woman without intimate contacts with other women, and without permission to enter male domains. Subsequently, Ogulnick (1998; 1999) reflected at length upon the dilemma imposed by her sojourns in Japan, where her professional identity conflicted with the exigencies of speaking onna rashiku (like a woman). Kline (1998) noted the frequency with which American women retreated into literacy activities to avoid sexual harassment while in France. In the qualitative portion of her study, Isabelli-García (2006) outlined the plight of Jennifer, a non-achiever in terms of language learning, who pointed to the status of women in Argentina as a rationale for her withdrawal from learning.


185

A particularly influential project is Polanyi’s narrative study of women’s language-learning experiences in Russia (1995). In light of the controversial finding of the larger quantitative study (Brecht, Davidson, and Ginsburg 1995), namely that male gender predicts growth in proficiency, Polanyi joined the second phase of Language Learning During Study Abroad: The Case of Russian in order to scrutinize the oral and written journals of participants, seeking information that might shed light on the origin of the gender effect. Data for the study include approximately 40 extensive journals in which students discussed events outside the classroom involving their language skills. Focusing on stories of gender-related incidents, Polanyi argued that the young women involved in the study were subject to continual positioning as sexual objects in their encounters with Russian males, that many of the skills they were able to acquire were related to successful navigation of situations involving harassment, and that their access to instructive informal encounters – including instruction on how to handle unwanted sexual overtures – tended to be limited to all-female interactions. The young men, on the other hand, reported romantic and fun encounters with Russian females in which they were positioned as far more competent in Russian than they actually were. ‘While the young men report a pleasant, romantic, fun time in sexual or potentially sexual encounters, for the young women, these encounters . . . are almost universally unpleasant and lead to self-doubt, social awkwardness, and worry’ (1995: 280). Among the stories recounted by the young women is the following incident reported in Sylvia’s journal, in which she visited a Russian Orthodox Church on Easter morning in the company of a young Russian man: At first we were talking about religion . . . And then it got, the talk came around to me and how he thought I looked like the Madonna, and it was really strange. At many times I thought I couldn’t hear something correctly that he said, because I figured he couldn’t be saying something so strange, but he really was, it turned out. So that was rather interesting. It was just the two of us hanging around in front of these icons and me kind of trying to put space between us in an impossible situation because there were people crowding around us. It was slightly stressful. I mean, I didn’t want to insult him, he kept saying, ‘Oh. Well. I know why you don’t like me, it’s because I’m Russian and you think that we’re all these stalking bears and you don’t like me.’ And that’s not true. He’s a nice

186


person, but I don’t know him very well, and it was just a weird situation. (Polanyi 1995: 282) In interpreting this example, Polanyi notes that on the surface, Sylvia’s experience corresponds to the hypothetical ideal for language learning abroad: an eager acquirer in one-to-one conversation with a native speaker in a prestigious, culturally significant setting. However, in Sylvia’s story, ‘discomfort leaks through her brave posturing’ (1995: 284) as she attempts to shed a positive light on an experience in which the only legitimacy she was offered was that of a sexual object. Polanyi argued that women encounter discriminatory practices both during the study abroad experience itself and in a process of evaluation that does not take into account the functional language ability that they are able to gain during their sojourn. Polanyi’s comments on evaluation were partly based on anecdotal evidence, including observation of the predominantly male research team as they discussed norms for assessing one’s level of acculturation in Russia through ability to perform a primarily male activity (proposing toasts in the homes of male friends, ‘while Russian wives, girlfriends, mothers, and sisters silently filed in and out replenishing the table,’ 1995: 290). Since female learners will not be rewarded for behaving like men while abroad, they will instead be obliged to ‘scramble to pick up how to speak and behave’ (1995: 290) like women, that is, in ways that are not formally acknowledged in language-learning curricula. Further, and cruelly in Polanyi’s view, the abilities that female learners develop will not figure in the definition of proficiency governing the gate-keeping tests administered at the end of the sojourn. In brief, Polanyi issued a scathing indictment, both of the study abroad experience itself and of the instructional and evaluative apparatus surrounding it. She called into question the supposed neutrality of learning contexts and of operational definitions of language ability in which male activities and language use are interpreted as the generic basis for the establishment of norms. Polanyi might find further support for claims about encounters with sexist behavior in two studies examining American women’s experiences in Costa Rica and in Spain (Twombly 1995; Talburt and Stewart 1999). Twombly (1995) conducted interviews and focus group discussions with students upon arrival and after four and a half months in various programs situated in Costa Rica. The results suggested that for many of the students interviewed and observed, at least the first four


187

months of the sojourn were not an immersion experience, but a series of alienating encounters in which gender played a major role. To compound the situation, those responsible for study abroad ‘were not fully aware of this “gender dynamic” for female students’ (Twombly 1995: 2). Interpretation of these data centers on two strongly emergent themes. First, the young American women involved in the study were initially quite perturbed by the practice of piropoing, or catcalling in the street, because they felt targeted by this practice both for their gender and for their status as foreigners. At the time of the study, piropos were a common occurrence in Costa Rican street life, and were often interpreted as a show of gallantry: harmless comments expressing appreciation for a woman’s beauty. According to the sociologist Francisco Escobar, cited in Twombly’s report, piropos functioned not only to send a flattering message but also to humiliate women and to express masculine superiority. Piropos existed in the relatively mild form of sayings such as Machita más bonita (Most beautiful young woman) or Hola angel (Hello angel), but there were also uglier and more sexually explicit piropos accompanied by lascivious gestures or hissing. In recent decades, the practice of using piropos had apparently been changing, with the piropos in use becoming less complimentary, and their users of lower socioeconomic class. Twombly discussed the students’ attempts to situate this practice in terms of its local interpretation, particularly by Costa Rican women. However, many students, especially those whose stay in Costa Rica was limited to one semester, never overcame the impression that they were under constant threat of sexual harassment: Sometimes it is the looks more than the verbal. Sometimes I just want to put a blanket over my body, especially when I pass a group of men. Guys staring and whispering and the laugh they have when they are in a group. When I wear a dress, it is worse. It is not just the act of saying piropos, it makes me tense to walk by men. I feel very vulnerable. (Twombly 1995: 9) Ultimately, the effect of this impression was that some students expressed feelings of alienation and isolation, and some took steps to block out their awareness of the piropos by systematically wearing a Walkman with headphones in public, thereby allowing them to ‘shut out other aspects of the culture as well’ (1995: 12). Secondly, women in these programs reported that it was far more difficult for them to make female than male friends, due in part to

188


differences in university-related institutional cultures and gender roles in the United States and in Costa Rica. Twombly pointed out that most of the study participants named language learning as a major goal of their sojourn, and that making Costa Rican friends was considered an important way to accomplish this goal. However, the students often felt rejected in their overtures to potential friends, and tended to explain this rejection through theories about stereotyping of North American women as freer but also more accessible as sexual objects. One particularly insightful student also observed that the role assigned to the institution of college in Costa Rica might diverge from North American students’ expectations, and that women’s social networks might be formed elsewhere (‘At home, college is our life. Here it is different. College is only part of life,’ 1995: 17). Twombly seconded this observation, noting that the study abroad students were entering a situation in which many Costa Rican students had been friends since childhood. Although the report on the study does not detail the preparation that these students received, the author recommends explicit treatment of gender-related issues both in orientation programs and in courses taking place during the study abroad sojourn. For Twombly, the first step in this process is to acknowledge the existence of problems. For example, simply telling students that piropos are harmless and should be ignored does not offer constructive ways to deal with discomfort they generate. Study abroad programs face a dilemma: on one hand, to emphasize gender issues might scare some students away from study abroad; on the other hand, to ignore or play down these issues may inhibit critical learning from taking place. The objective should be not to change the host culture but to convert problematic situations into critical learning experiences for students. (Twombly 1995: 19) This conversion may be achieved, according to the author, if there exists a forum provided over the course of the semester for women to discuss practices like piropoing and cross-cultural views of gender. Twombly also suggests that programs do more, in the interest of student’s connection with local culture, to exploit local social resources, such as alumni networks, host families, and interest groups such as students of English as a Second Language. Talburt and Stewart (1999) undertook an ethnographic study examining exactly how such a forum functioned in practice. Working with a short-term (five week) summer program in Spain, the authors wished


189

to explore the relationship between students’ informal experiences and their participation in a Spanish culture and civilization class. Although the study was designed with these broader goals in mind, the researchers’ attention was persistently drawn to the plight of Misheila, the only African-American student in the program, whose experience was marked by ‘hypervisibility’ in that she was subjected to continuous and humiliating emphasis on race and sexuality in her interactions with Spaniards. Data for the study included audio-taped observation of the Spanish culture course along with individual interviews with focal participants, group interviews with the remaining 12 students in the class, on-site observation of informal encounters, and interviews with the course instructor. The authors scrutinized the ways in which Misheila’s race and gender were problematized as she came to know Spanish culture, how these issues were incorporated into the curriculum, and how they affected other students’ perceptions of their position in the culture. Because the course was expressly intended to teach students how to observe cultural phenomena and to situate them terms of local meanings, a significant portion of the content was shaped by student involvement. The instructor gathered weekly written observations on ‘living culture’ (Talburt and Stewart 1999: 166) and used these as a fulcrum for generating discussions about underlying cultural meaning and questioning generalizations about Spanish life. One in-class discussion was launched by Misheila’s negative appraisal of her situation. In Misheila’s words (translated from her Spanish): For me while I have been in Spain I notice that the African woman is a symbol of sexuality. When I walk in the streets I receive comments on my skin and sexual commentaries . . . It’s very difficult for me and I don’t think it is something cultural, it is an ignorant mind. When they make commentaries to me I feel that they’re taking advantage of me being different and not having command of the language. And I don’t like it. (Talburt and Stewart 1999: 169) . As the students and their instructor analyzed this situation, Misheila’s story pushed some of the students to think critically about their own society in ways that might not have been possible in their home institutions. Specifically, Misheila’s hypervisibility, and the resulting difficulties she faced in coping with piropos and unwanted sexual advances, confronted the other students with the privilege of their own

190


position as White, and therefore better able to ‘blend in’ (1999: 172). In the words of one of the young White male participants in the study: I’ve been very lucky because I blend in some. . . . I’ve got a little bit of camouflage. But Misheila has no camouflage. She is extremely noticeable, so I don’t know what to say. (Talburt and Stewart 1999: 172) For these authors, race and gender are not peripheral to the study abroad experience but are integral to what students ‘do and do not learn’ (1999: 173, italics in the original) and as such should contribute to the content of curricula. Study abroad curricula should incorporate ‘sustained discussion of students’ sociocultural differences and resulting particularities in their experiences in the host culture’ (1999: 163). This inclusion will not only help students who are marked by race and gender to better understand and cope with their position, but will also involve all students in critical learning experiences lending depth and broad relevance to intercultural understanding. Another take on gender in study abroad is provided in Churchill’s case study (2005) examining the experience of a Japanese, male, high-school student (‘Masa’) in a short-term study abroad program in the United States. Churchill characterized this student as ‘sociable in the most positive sense of the word, polite, up-standing, and sensitive,’ but working at a slower pace when compared to his classmates, having joined the class with the lowest score on the entrance exam. His minority status, as one of four males in a class of 47 students, contributed to his isolation and academic difficulties at home. For example, he felt disadvantaged academically because his female classmates worked together while he did his work mainly on his own. Also, his social networks involving other males were located outside of school, in sports activities such as Kendo, and this investment of time detracted from his studies. In the study abroad context, however, this minority status was turned to his advantage. Masa enjoyed placement as the only study abroad student in his host family (in contrast to the females who were placed in pairs), a situation affording significant opportunity to interact in English. Specifically, Masa was placed in a family with a younger son with whom he enacted the role of ‘older brother.’ Perhaps more importantly, at St. Martin’s, the private secondary school he attended, he was immediately welcomed into group activities, beginning with the cross-country team, where he profited from a network of peers and corresponding interactive resources. Churchill compared Masa’s


191

experience of extra-curricular activity to that of the females. The eight girls had elected to join team sports such as field hockey and soccer, had difficulty in finding equipment and a place to change clothes, and, in the end, participated only in a limited way. Masa, on the other hand, was sent to find the cross-country team on his own, while Churchill, as chaperone, attempted to help the girls. In Masa’s words: I chose cross country because I had to run in Junior High School . . . I had no detail about cross-country at St. Martin’s, but the first day I was the only Japanese in club. Mr. Churchill said to me ‘go to club alone’. But it was my first time without Mr. Churchill and other students. Then I thought ‘Where do I go?’ but now I think this was the best way. . . . On the first day at club, a lot of students asked a lot of questions about cross-country in Japan and club in Japan. Mostly I couldn’t understand what they were saying, but they didn’t mind my English. (Churchill 2005: 5) . To Masa’s great surprise, on the first day of his participation he was invited to run in an upcoming race. From that point forward, he positioned himself as a member of the cross-country team and was assigned this identity by the other students in the school as well. His affiliation with the sports team facilitated his inclusion in many other activities such as eating lunch with teammates, riding the bus to races, and cheering the team’s performance. Masa was an active participant in conversation with his teammates on topics of mutual interest such as cross-country teams in Japan, fashion, music, teenage vernacular, and girls. He served as an intermediary for some of his classmates who wanted to meet his female peers. ‘Thus, as a male and a member of the cross country team, he was called upon to become a broker on the playing field of interpersonal relations’ (2005: 6). Assessment of Masa’s oral proficiency at the end of the program was compared with that of a female participant with a similar pre-departure profile. In contrast to Masa, the female student did not report extended opportunities to interact in English with American peers; she did not really participate in the field hockey team, because she was new to the sport, and she spent much of her free time in the company of Japanese peers. In a two-minute spoken narrative, Masa outperformed his female classmate on every measure, with a higher number of words and syllabus per minute and a lower average pause length. Masa also used verbs in the past tense and displayed marked improvement in his pronunciation,

192


while his female counterpart did not. This assessment supports the overall conclusion that study abroad is a relatively favorable environment for the development of speaking skill by male learners. The qualitative aspects of the study, moreover, demonstrate how the performance of gendered identity is related both to program factors and to the provision of learning opportunities. Inspired by poststructuralist accounts of identity and by recent emphasis on the local and socio-historically situated nature of learners’ dispositions toward language learning (Norton 2000; Pavlenko 2001; 2002b), in Kinginger (2006; 2008) I traced the ideological sources employed in students’ narratives of gender in study abroad. These studies assume that a more nuanced approach to gender in study abroad is needed, one that will move beyond the observation of sexism in host cultures. Student perceptions of identity-related practices are based in a complex interaction of observation, participation, and the ‘social representations’ (Moore 2004) of the host culture to which the students have been exposed at home. Social representations include both positive and negative stereotypes and generally serve to help constitute ideologies upholding the values and superiority of their culture of origin at the macro-level of ‘enduring, objectified, massive structures that are usually controlled by social leaders’ (Ratner 2006). Student perceptions, grounded in these ideologies, are closely related to the dynamics of motivation to learn, and may be used to highlight or to downplay the significance of language competence. For example, in the United States, French-language competence is associated with femininity (see, for example, Watson’s claim that ‘Real Men Don’t Speak French,’ 1995: 12). The traditional French man, as consistently portrayed in the American media, is effete if not effeminate, yet obsessed with sexual prowess and sensual pleasure. Images of the French woman are promulgated in the popular American genre of self-help literature, in publications aiming to instruct women on attaining that je ne sais quoi of French femininity, including beauty, self-possession, discretion, respect for history, and ability to shop with quality and authenticity in mind. Recent titles include the best-selling French Women Don’t Get Fat (Guiliano 2005), as well as: C’est la Vie (Gershman 2004), French Toast: An American in Paris Celebrates the Maddening Mysteries of the French (Rochefort 1997), Fatale: How French Women Do It (Kunz 2000), and Entre Nous: A Woman’s Guide to Finding Her Inner French Girl (Ollivier 2003). The implied paradox of these works is that these positive attributes somehow occur naturally and effortlessly in French women, but that they can be taught. In addition to thinness,


193

American women are lacking in je ne sais quoi and require tutelage in order to measure up to the French model. Thus, American images of French femininity place American women in a position of inferiority in terms of body image, style, and general savoir-faire, and thereby contribute to a more macro-level effort to underscore women’s lesser status in society (Ratner 2006). American students in France were shown to draw upon these images in their writing and speaking about the role of gender in shaping their study abroad experience. For Deirdre, gender roles contributed to an overall rejection of French society, and of competence in French. Deirdre was one of the lowest achievers in the study, in terms of documented language development, and was also among the least involved in extracurricular activities, limiting her interactions in French to the strict minimum in service encounters. As part of a general tendency to cast French society in a negative light, Deirdre accused the French in general of failure to respect women and to grant them liberty in their choice of self-presentation style. French women, for Deirdre, conform to the image of ‘snotty’ superiority portrayed in the American self-help books: um I think women are – I think they can be kinda snotty, I think they stare a lot. everyone’s noticed that. and I think they’re stylish, I think they’re very concerned about the way they look. um their bodies as well as their fashion . . . Monday morning rolls around and the girls dress up like they’re going out Friday night, and it just – it looks ridiculous to me. (Kinginger 2008: 96) American women, by contrast, are relaxed about their dress, more involved in athletic activities, and are interested in ‘having a good time with whatever they are doing:’ um I think American women are a lot more athletic. definitely. you don’t see any girls running here, you don’t see any girls in sweat pants or anything like that, I think American women are often more laid back, and just worried about their – having a good time with whatever they’re doing. um I think that for example at Midatlantic State, you’ll see girls just walking to class in their sweat pants, or even in their pjs. (Kinginger 2008: 96) Thus, in addition to pointing out aspects of her experience that she characterized as sexual harassment, Deirdre’s rejection of the gender roles

194


she was able to observe assisted her in crafting a rationale for overall rejection of a society where she did not want to be assigned an inferior femininity, and consequently did not perceive a role for herself. In the end, Deirdre’s gain scores on tests of proficiency and language awareness were extremely modest, and in fact she earned a lower score on the reading post-test than she had attained prior to departure. She cut short her stay in Europe, leaving immediately at the end of the school term, and claimed that she was ‘done’ with French. For Bill, one of the most successful achievers in the cohort, perceptions of gender were also consistent with images of the French in American media representations, but Bill himself emerged in a favorable light. In commenting on gender during an interview at the end of his sojourn in Dijon, Bill expresses a marked preference for French women over American women, and for American men over French men. American women, according to Bill, are ‘passive,’ ‘have absolutely no opinion about anything,’ and waste their time chatting about ‘crap.’ French women, on the other hand, act assertively in the presence of men, and are not fearful of challenging them in discussions. His comments on their appearance might have been lifted directly from the pages of the Francophile self-improvement literature: uh most French women have this incredible sense of style, um and . . . they appreciate them for what they are. and there’s not like as far as their body type is concerned and I think they they even the older women, they look great all the time. like not trashy or anything like that but I think they make a genuine a genuine effort. (Kinginger 2008: 91) French men in general are condemned by Bill for their lack of subtlety in interactions with women, and particularly for harassing young women in public. These interactions, however, provide Bill with opportunities to cast himself as a hero and defender of women’s honor who intervenes in decisive ways, either by implicitly claiming the women or by directly challenging the offending party: I can’t say how many times I have like been so forward when like French guys come up to French girls and I have to—with American friends. like they’ve said no a couple of times like annoyed them. and I can see it in their face and so I take it upon myself like look like first—I’ll literally dance with them literally like I have no no problem I mean I would dance with them and if they don’t get the point I’ll


195

start yelling at them like go away like you’re not wanted here. and I just don’t – like what’s wrong—like what don’t you understand here. (Kinginger 2008: 91) Taken together, these circumstances permitted Bill to celebrate images of French femininity while resisting what he perceived to be normative French masculinity. At the same time, he posited the superiority not only of American masculine practices of avoiding sexual harassment and honoring gender equity, but also of his own role as gallant defender of French girls. Bill did not feel called upon to question or reorient his own performance of gender. Rather, he used his identification with American ideologies to underscore his own moral worthiness. Specifically, he accepted a role as admirer of feminine charm but modified this role to add a moral dimension that explicitly rejects sexual harassment. At the end of his sojourn, Bill’s achievement on measures of language development and assessment of language awareness was dramatic in comparison to the rest of the cohort, and he expressed a sense of high affiliation with French culture that would accompany him into his personal and professional life after college. In the studies reviewed here and elsewhere, the American literature on gendered experiences abroad would suggest that wherever they go, women complain of sexual harassment. Whether they are in Russia (Polanyi 1995), Argentina (Isabelli-García 2006), France (Kline 1998), Spain (Talburt and Stewart 1999), or Costa Rica (Twombly 1995) these women are greeted with unfamiliar gender-related practices such as the piropo or other undesired sexual advances. In coming to the United States, the Japanese student Masa found himself positioned as a success story, whereas his female counterparts were less fortunate (Churchill 2005). It is instructive to note in this context that qualitative studies of students from other countries generally do not refer to problems of gender equity. However, in Patron’s investigation of French students on a yearlong sojourn in Australia, the students’ early encounters with genderrelated practices had a similarly negative but very different effect on the students’ self-concept. Patron cites the dismay of Arlette, for whom the absence of practices potentially construed as harassment by American students ‘struck at the core of her identity as a woman’ (2007: 62): La drague, j’ai trouvé ça vraiment bizarre. Parce que c’est presque politiquement incorrect de draguer. Au bout d’un moment je me suis dit: ‘Bon, il doit y avoir un problème avec ma personne. Voilà je dois pas être belle ou je dois

196


avoir pris du poids, ou ya quelque chose parce que ya jamais personne qui me drague. Personne me fait des compliments’ [. . .] les gens ne se regardent pas en fait [. . .] C’est désagréable parce qu’on se sent moins bien et en meme temps on se sent plus en sécurité. (‘Picking up, I found this very weird. Because it’s almost politically incorrect to pick up people. After a while, I said to myself: “OK, there must be a problem with me. There, I must not be beautiful, or I must have put on weight, or there must be something because no one ever tries to pick me up. No one gives me compliments” [. . .] In fact, people don’t look at each other [. . .] It’s really unpleasant because you don’t feel good about yourself but at the same time you feel much safer.’) (Patron 2007: 62) Arlette’s critique of ‘politically correct’ gender relations and her sadness at the absence of gallantry suggest that there is more than one way to frame this question. Ideologies and performances of gender are socio-historically situated, as noted by Pavlenko and Blackledge (2004), and this means that it is important to interpret students’ comments in light of their prior socialization and of the options for the performance of gender within their societies of origin. The vision of the world’s gendered practices emerging from US-based research is a specifically American phenomenon, and should be judged as such. A better understanding of the relationship between gender identity and language learning abroad might emerge from interpretations of students’ stories in both local and intercultural context. Meanwhile, however, it would appear that American students’ perceptions of gender inequity contribute to their rationale for turning down opportunities to join communities of practice abroad. In this sense, one important meaning of these findings is that they shed considerable light on the social origins of a consistent gender effect in documentation of language proficiency outcomes (Carlson, Burn, Useem, and Yachimowicz, 1990; Brecht, Davidson, and Ginsburg 1995; IsabelliGarcía 2006). They allow the reader to ‘dig deeper into the qualities and specifics of student experiences’ (Ginsburg and Miller 2000: 256) and to see that gender shapes students’ access to learning both directly and indirectly, through the students’ own reactions to the practices of their hosts. National identity In addition to gender, national identity has emerged as relevant in the study of learners’ dispositions toward communities of practice. In Block’s reading of the US-based study abroad literature, ‘when the


197

going gets tough for study abroad students, the subject position of the American abroad emerges as dominant’ (Block 2007a: 170–171; see also Dolby 2004). Ultimately, therefore, study abroad experiences ‘might lead, not to greater intercultural awareness, but to an enhanced sense of national identity’ (Block 2007a: 171). The project mentioned above (Kinginger 2008) included several cases of students who recoiled into a sense of national superiority when faced with criticism of the United States. These students’ arrival in France for the Spring semester of 2003 coincided with the US-led invasion of Iraq and the prior build-up of international tension over threats of their country’s unilateral actions in the Middle East. Mutual hostility was in plain view on both sides of the Atlantic, with a dramatic resurgence of ‘French-bashing’ on the part of the American media (Verdaguer 2004), and vocal anti-Americanism on display in anti-war demonstrations throughout France. This conflict played a significant role for most of the participants in that aspects of their national identity were routinely challenged, whether directly, in conflictual interaction, or in observation and interpretation of local events. Beatrice, for example, arrived in Paris with a high score on the Test de Français International, given prior to the beginning of the program (715/990, indicating ‘basic working proficiency’), and reflecting her eight years of language study. Throughout the journals and interviews examined in this study, Beatrice positioned herself as a determined language learner, struggling to achieve access to French-mediated interactive settings, and cheering herself on as she overcame pronunciation difficulties or enhanced her vocabulary. Despite consistent efforts, Beatrice was unable to make lasting contact with French peers, and came to rely primarily on her left-leaning French-Tunisian host family, with three adolescent daughters, for an immersion experience. However, in the end Beatrice was estranged even from her host family. Before she left for Paris, Beatrice anticipated that she would be challenged in her positive assessment of post-9/11 American foreign policy, grounded primarily in stories of a personal connection to victims of the World Trade Center disaster. After the anti-war demonstrations and the invasion of Iraq had begun, her defensive posture grew more pronounced, to the point where she was inclined to interpret even unrelated events through this lens. The story of her estrangement from her host family begins with this defensiveness, and led to the incident below, recounted in her journal. Olivia, one of Beatrice’s classmates, requested permission from an instructor to be absent from class for the purpose of visiting the Normandy beaches with her family. Apparently,

198


Olivia launched into a long explanation about her grandfather’s role in World War Two and her need to visit the beaches on a day when tours in English would be offered: Well our teacher flipped out on her basically telling her it was completely out of the question and how dare she ask something like that. It was by far the rudest thing I have ever witnessed. She’s better than I am because if I had been she, I would have said something to the effect of ‘listen you asshole, he was fighting for you and without people like our grandfathers you would be German now.’ [. . .] Well when I told my French family- they said it was a bit rude of her to ask that. Are you kidding me. The double standard of this is that guys in our class skip and come late to class everyday and our prof. says absolutely nothing. But Olivia, in trying to be polite is reprimanded and her actions are considered rude. You have to be joking. I do not see what is so wrong with going to the Normandy beaches and without the Americans on those beaches that fought for them, the French would have become German. (Kinginger 2008: 71) In interpreting these interactions, Beatrice drew on her textual heritage, the narrative resources and accompanying social positions that Americans use in the activity of ‘collective remembering’ (Wertsch 2002) related to the history of Franco-American relations. In particular, she embedded her assessment in an image of American heroism and military might that is key to the collective memory of the World War Two in the United States and that was routinely contrasted in the contemporary French-bashing media with corresponding images of French weakness and cowardice. (e.g., a joke appearing on CNN.com at the time: Going to war without the French is like going hunting without your accordion.) Beatrice positioned herself and her classmates as representatives of a nation that intervened decisively to preserve the integrity of France, and therefore as entitled to elevated status. Curiously, Beatrice did not even consider the possibility that Olivia’s request for an excused absence for personal reasons might have violated French classroom norms, and that the reaction of the instructor may not have had anything to do with the symbolism of the Normandy beaches. As noted in Chapter 4, the participant structure of typical French classrooms does not include establishment of solidarity-based relationships between instructors and students. An informal poll suggested that, in fact, educators in France tended to interpret Olivia’s


199

request as an inappropriate act displaying lack of respect for the teacher’s efforts in planning and delivering instruction. If a student has a strong, personal reason for missing classes, the student should keep it to herself and be prepared to accept the consequences of her absence (e.g., getting notes from another student, in preparation for the exam). Not one of the educators polled suggested that the instructor in this scenario was reacting to the interpretive theme elected by Beatrice. Beatrice recounted complete estrangement from her host family for the better part of a week following the ‘Normandy incident.’ Following that period, moreover, she never regained her trust in the family. Her journals and interviews included no information on the opinions of the family with respect to the United States or indeed, any other topic, suggesting that Beatrice engaged in very little dialogue in which she listened to their perspectives. Rather, from the point at which this incident occurred until the end of her stay, she interpreted all of their interactions with her, and particularly their attempts to correct her French, as offensive personal slights. Beatrice’s story illustrates how sociopolitical tensions at the level of policy in the countries involved can play a part in shaping learners’ stances toward their interlocutors. In particular, the study shows how opposition to American foreign policy may be taken personally by American students. This reaction intensifies their tendency to cope with difficulties abroad by recoiling into the superiority of American culture (Block 2007a) rather than by attempting to understand local points of view. This type of stance-making appears to be characteristic of the American students portrayed in research on study abroad, but national identity does not always constitute a refuge from the vagaries of intercultural communication. In the European context as studied by MurphyLejeune (2002), emergent nationalism is absent from the commentary of participants in study abroad programs. For these students, travel to foreign destinations had been a significant aspect of their upbringing, and as a result, in comparison to students from the United States, they were relatively well equipped to imagine what a study abroad sojourn would involve. Moreover, there is a sense in which ‘these students embody an emergent pan European identity as participants in a much larger pan-European project that sees ever-greater social, political and economic integration across the European Union and the prospect of living and working across European nation state borders’ (Block 2007a: 180). In other words, study abroad in this context is more fully integrated into the life worlds and history of participants. It serves as ‘an instrument of European construction’ (Murphy-Lejeune 2002): (1) under the

200


European Union’s political and legal framework specifically designed to internationalize European institutions and to support the right of free movement with EC countries as instituted by the Treaty of Rome. Murphy-Lejeune’s project was to explore European student mobility from a phenomenological perspective, with the aim of gaining a firsthand, in-depth picture of student travelers and their experiences. The project involved semi-structured interviews on the nature of the experience with 50 participants in three distinct programs of varying structure, the ERASMUS project accrediting periods abroad, a program recruiting language assistants to teach their own language in the countries whose language they are learning, and the international program of the Ecole Européene des Affaires de Paris (EAP) which includes three years abroad, in Paris, Oxford, and Berlin or Madrid. In every case, the period to be spent abroad was of a year or more, in contrast to the typical American study abroad program of a semester or less. Participants in these programs belong to a ‘migratory elite’ benefiting from considerable ‘mobility capital . . . enabling individuals to enhance their skills because of the richness of the international experience gained by living abroad’ (2002: 51). Mobility capital is defined by Murphy-Lejeune in terms of family and history, previous experience and personality features. Of particular interest here is the fact that, for many of these students, multilingualism is a ‘natural habitat’ (2002: 53). Many of the students came from families of mixed language heritage, with experience of expatriation for professional reasons, or with a proEuropean family tradition that may include maintaining an open house welcoming visitors of diverse national origin. They may have lived in a border area, where the crossing of borders is a demystified ordinary practice. Many of them had also experienced frequent travel abroad, beginning at young age, and developing second-language competence ‘high enough to enable them to pursue their study or work in the foreign environment’ (2002: 61). They had developed specific attitudes and capacities relevant to living abroad, including self-sufficiency and the ability to take risks when speaking a second language. According to Caroline, a student categorized as possessing expert mobility capital: I like expressing myself in another language and I am not afraid even when I know that I make loads of mistakes. I am not afraid because when I was young, I was forced to . . . that, that was a positive point because I have friends who are very good at foreign languages, but precisely they dare not speak it because they know that they make


201

mistakes . . . well, I speak even though . . . I jump in the water . . . that’s the first thing. (Murphy-Lejeune 2002: 74) The students’ mobility capital is revealed in narratives of adaptation and integration into local social networks to various degrees, shaped in part by program factors, with the EAP students and language assistants crossing over into professional networks while the ERASMUS students remained affiliated with the university. Although outcomes were varied in terms of adaptation, significantly, the students anticipated that they would pass through phases in this process, including an early stage in which ‘cultural differences or national identity “stick out all the time”’ (2002: 211). They further assumed that adaptation would involve constructing a shared history with local people, and that it would be their responsibility to seek out social contact and to remain ‘very open and ready to try out new things and new experiences’ (2002: 210). Rather than assigning blame to their host culture, as did Deirdre and Beatrice, these students considered that the outcome of an encounter between a person and a new culture might be positive or negative, but the onus is ultimately on the individual who ‘has the cards in hand and decides whether or not s/he wants to play the game’ (2002: 212). For these students, moreover, the significance of national identity and of cultural differences may be notable, but in many cases it is muted by the overarching concern for, and enjoyment of, a pan-European identity. Many of the studies exploring identity in study abroad only scratch the surface of the dilemmas and contradictions inherent in the performance of identities mediated by second languages. Rather, these studies focus on the entry process that characterizes the study abroad experience, examining situations in which students find themselves on the periphery of communities of practice, and may or may not be granted the legitimacy they require for growing participation. These studies suggest that it is not only opportunities for immediate engagement that may be limited. For example, when local gendered practices clash with the expectations of young women, the piropo may be interpreted as sexual harassment, including public humiliation, or its absence may be framed as a personal slight. As a result, the women may reorient their motives for participation in study abroad, with language learning and other forms of integration into host communities losing some of their significance, at least temporarily, as illustrated by Isabelli-García’s (2006) case of Jennifer or by the disappointment of Arlette (Patron 2007).

202


These studies also suggest that language learning is a socio-historically situated activity in which learners interpret their experiences through the lens of their history, including ideologies of gender and of nationality. Kinginger (2006; 2008) considers the cases of young undergraduates in France who ‘see’ the performance of gender in French in terms popularized by the American media, and who interpret interpersonal conflict based on American ‘collective remembering’ (Wertsch 2002) of FrancoAmerican political history. In these cases, a relatively brief period of study abroad appears mainly to have reinforced the students’ affiliation to their original stances. The cases studies by Murphy-Lejeune (2002) provide a useful contrast, demonstrating that national affiliations do not necessarily exert a determining force on students’ interpretive repertoires in every case.

Summary and conclusion The research reviewed in this chapter offers a view of the language learner abroad quite different from the image emerging from outcomesoriented research. Students abroad are positioned in various ways on the periphery of the communities they join. On one level, the value of study abroad as a language-learning environment depends quite crucially on how these students are received in the host communities they visit, whether or not and to what extent their participation is legitimated, whether their encounters lead to frustration or to the desperate, creative longing to craft a foreign language–mediated identity described by David Sedaris (2000). The research on language socialization in host families shows that casual and dinnertime conversation can be extremely valuable as a crucible for learning language in concert with everyday sociocultural meanings, values, and tastes. In such conversations, students are offered opportunities to extend the communicative repertoires required for fuller participation. Furthermore, when they are construed as a two-way affair, these interactions offer potential to enlighten all parties, students, and hosts. However, language learners abroad may also be positioned in undesired ways, as strange and fundamentally incompetent gaijin, or as homestay family pets. That is, interactions with host families may foster students’ strategic incompetence as language users. Students abroad may encounter ideologies limiting their access to the language when interlocutors assume that they do not need, or cannot learn, the subtleties of required of highly expert language use. Furthermore, the language in use around host family dinner tables is not necessarily the purified standard variety


203

under scrutiny in many studies of language acquisition. In addition to Foreigner Talk, host family members are likely to use generation-, region-, or gender-specific varieties and to impart their own ‘folklinguistic theories’ of language (Miller and Ginsburg 1995) to their student guests. The extent to which study abroad offers occasions for language learning also depends upon how students opt to position themselves with respect to these communities. In the research on identity, students’ dispositions toward their hosts are seen to emerge from the stances these students adopt, based mainly upon their own sociocultural history and the narrative or other interpretive resources they recruit for this purpose. American students in Europe and Latin America, both male and female, for example, interpret foreign gender–related practices such as the piropo as discriminatory, and therefore condemn both the practices and the societies that condone them. French students in Australia, however, are surprised and even hurt by the absence of overt flirtation within a politically correct view of gender relations. Beatrice, an American student in France, recoiled into national superiority when faced with criticism of her country’s foreign policy, and therefore limited her own access to informal language use in her host family (Kinginger 2008). The European sojourners whose experience is described by MurphyLejeune (2002), however, were better prepared in advance to anticipate and negotiate intercultural conflict. Overall, these studies suggest that the identity-related stories of study abroad participants need to be interpreted in light of extent to which they engage students in negotiation of difference (Block 2007b; Kinginger in press) or cement their initial stances. More importantly, these stories should not be taken at face value, but should be analyzed in relation to their sociocultural and historical sources. Taken together, studies of identity and language socialization offer intriguing insights into the qualities of sojourns abroad and how students use them for learning. They suggest that the sources of variation in the outcomes of acquisition research are not limited to traditional individual differences, but may have to do with the dispositions students adopt and with the specific qualities of the interactive settings they frequent while abroad. Some of the research points to links between the stances of learners and hosts and the framing of language learning at broader, societal, and ideological levels. That is, if some American students readily abandon their language-related goals as they condemn the practices of their host communities, this choice may be related to the general disregard for the achievements of language learners in the

204


United States. If some Japanese hosts adopt a cultural dependency model in caring for their guests, this decision may stem in part from adherence to the ideology of nihonjiron. Above all, this research points to the value of ecological approaches to language learning abroad in which there is a concerted effort to match the assessment of language development to the precise qualities of the experience (Cicourel 2007). Of particular importance would be research in which there is ‘an attempt to reconstruct detailed life stories of learners hand-in-hand with and interest in linguistic development over time’ (Block 2003: 138). Further study of learners’ interactive positioning in language socialization, the stances they adopt, the nature of their interactions, and the qualities of their evolving communicative repertoires would have a great deal to offer in the effort to understand language learning abroad.

6 Interpreting Research on Language Learning in Study Abroad

As a seasoned language educator, looking back on my own study abroad in France I see a period of intense language socialization. At work on the Lunes’ family farm, my only opportunity to use English was in attempting to translate the lyrics of a Patti Smith album for one of the farmhands, a would-be punk rocker. Once, someone mentioned some Anglais who had purchased a summer home on the other side of the mountain, but we never went there. The Lunes owned the sole telephone in the village, used mostly by the elder villagers who shouted into it as if it were a tin can on a string. I entertained voluminous correspondence by letter with my parents and long-term friends, but called home only once that year, after standing on line at the post office, to make sure no one had been injured or sickened by radiation leaks from the Three Mile Island nuclear plant. If I wanted something, most of the time I had to figure out how to ask for in French. If I wanted to eat, it was going to be celeriac remoulade or pot au feu and not peanut butter or salsa. If I wanted to know what was going on in the news, I had to rely on local media sources. If I wanted to interact with most of the people around me, I had to craft a French-mediated identity based on what I had observed through close contact with French people. This is the image of study abroad that I carried into my work as a teacher, and then as a teacher educator and researcher. In the interim since that fateful year, I watched as the world became more globalized and communication less tied to local social networks. I celebrated these changes in my classrooms for the access they provided to resources and other people abroad, but did not really see their impact on study abroad until I embarked on my own research on this topic. In Kinginger 205

206


(2008), I followed a cohort of American students engaged in their now-typical semester-length program in France and discovered, to my astonishment, that the baseline condition of a study abroad participant appears to have changed in some dramatic ways. Students now control their own communicative environment much more than they did in the past. They may bring their entire, enormous music and podcast libraries with them, using an iPod to block out the sounds of their surroundings. They may opt to screen themselves from local realities and social networks, choosing to spend the better part of their time online, absorbed in interactions with friends at home or in home-based media. Increasingly, Anglophone students encounter settings where their own language is in demand, and preferred for both social and classroom talk. If they want to interpret their study abroad experience as a chance to consume globalized infotainment, few will challenge them, as it has become much easier to travel for pleasure and to be received as a tourist. In many places, they will navigate a landscape dotted with Starbucks signs or Disney corporate logos. If they want peanut butter, they can purchase it at a big-box store without talking to anyone. Documenting the quality of these students’ experiences cemented my conviction that a better overall understanding of the relationship between study abroad and language learning is needed. On behalf of students who truly desire language competence, all parties need more refined and organized knowledge of what can be achieved in study abroad. Policy decisions need to be guided by dispassionate yet critical assessment of the overall phenomenon, and not by sensationalist posturings based on limited information. In language education, teachers and administrators need to cease looking on study abroad as an excuse not to teach languages and focus instead on helping students to learn before they go abroad, while they are away, and when they come back. Language-learning researchers need to understand the scope and limitations of inquiry to date, in order to extend the knowledge base in maximally relevant ways. This chapter offers a summary and overall interpretation of the research examined in the book, beginning with a review of the constructs invoked to represent the three terms in the title: ‘language,’ ‘learning,’ and ‘study abroad.’ Next, the main findings of this research are enumerated, and a number of limitations in this sub-field to date are outlined. Finally, consideration is extended to the meaning and implications of this research base for language-learning researchers, policy makers, and educators.

Interpreting Research on Language Learning in Study Abroad 207

‘Language,’ ‘learning,’ and ‘study abroad’ in the research literature As noted in the introductory chapter, language learning in study abroad is extremely complex, requiring researchers to choose from a broad array of potential foci. Depending upon prior theoretical commitments or desired practical implications of their inquiry, scholars have in fact elected to frame ‘language,’ ‘learning,’ and ‘study abroad’ in diverse ways, and have approached the object of their study from multiple angles. One very clear trend is in the increasing emphasis on particularity (van Lier 2005) within the definition of these constructs. The history of the field suggests a process by which research based on relatively blunt conceptual instruments has yielded questions that can only be addressed with more refined constructs. In the case of ‘language’ the diversity of study abroad research is reflected in a continuum ranging from the study of two verbs as reflective of broader acquisition orders (Ryan and Lafford 1992) to the study of language socialization, in which the learning of language forms is seen as embedded in much larger process of discovering taste and ultimately, becoming a particular type of person (DuFon 2006). The early project of Carroll (1967) was based on the holistic construct of ‘proficiency,’ and numerous subsequent efforts documented how study abroad fosters overall language ability as measured by tests. However, this effort encountered its limits when researchers understood that holistic tests do not necessarily capture growth in specific domains, and in the case of short-term study abroad, may not record gains at all. Some researchers opted to replace ‘proficiency’ with other global constructs related to modalities of language use, including speaking fluency, listening comprehension, reading, or writing. Others chose to study specific components of communicative competence, including discourse, linguistic, actional, sociocultural, and strategic abilities. Much of this research views language as a concrete, individually owned product, to be assessed based on performance in various monologic tasks, with little concern for the extent to which students have appropriated locally relevant corresponding meanings. However, increasingly, the research base also includes studies in which the construct of language is extended to include its relationship to the identities of speakers and embodied experiences of the world, including sights, sounds, flavors, and the values of host communities (van Lier 2008). In this research it becomes clearer that new languages afford not only larger toolkits for the transfer of information, but also

208


ways of remediating the self (Lantolf and Thorne 2006) through new communicative repertoires. In the case of ‘learning,’ the study abroad literature reflects its affiliation with the broader field of SLA, borrowing constructs from that field, including the early emphasis on immutable orders of acquisition for certain morphemes, the importing of Chomskian Universal Grammar to explain constraints on the learning of languages beyond the first, and especially, computational models privileging the role of input, made comprehensible through social interaction and provided to the universal human language processor. These perspectives, particularly the latter, have encouraged a view of study abroad as a period during which students may increase their time-on-task for language learning as well as the sheer amount of input exposure. They have also privileged a view of the learner as a bundle of individual difference variables invoked to hypothesize about why some students learn and others do not. There is little concern, in this research, for students’ reasons to learn languages and for the broader societal support they are (or are not) provided in this endeavor. We begin to grasp a more nuanced view of the learner in the qualitative literature on student experiences, when learning is associated with challenges to identity, or in examining the particular features of socializing encounters with host families abroad. Here, learning is most often viewed not as a process of acquisition, but as a gradual means of socialization into new communities of practice, with implications for the identities of both students and their hosts. The views of ‘study abroad’ taken up in the research tend to follow from conceptualizations of language and learning. If language is a concrete product in some sense extracted from a context, any context, then study abroad can be interpreted as analogous to an experimental treatment, with efforts in place to limit intervening variables, but little hope of controlling every potentially influential feature. If, on the other hand, language is viewed as the individual’s unique repertoire of communicative resources appropriated through engagement with the people and artifacts of the host group, then study abroad represents an opportunity to understand others through their language, to grasp not only the forms of a new language, but also their meanings.

The big picture Overall, although they are sometimes modest, the findings of outcomesoriented research offer an encouraging picture of language learning in study abroad. Particularly in domains related to social interaction,


such as fluency through formulaic language, the ability to open and close conversations, or approximation of native-speaker norms for sociolinguistic variation, the research provides convincing, concrete, and detailed evidence to back up the impression that study abroad is especially useful in this domain. Study abroad participants have been shown to develop many capabilities directly related to the experience of interacting in a variety of foreign language–mediated settings: an enhanced repertoire of speech acts, improved awareness of register and style, larger and more native-like vocabularies, more autonomy as speakers assuming responsibility for their own utterances, or better abilities to hold the floor and save face while maintaining solidarity with their interlocutors. In every area, however, even when initial findings are disappointing to proponents of study abroad, further work has gone on to provide evidence of its value. In the case of proficiency, for example, whereas work with small groups of participants typically does not generate robust effects, larger-scale studies, beginning with Carroll’s (1967), have linked proficiency with study abroad throughout the history of the research. In the case of grammatical competence, even if only a very refined analysis (Howard 2005) could show an advantage for study abroad participants, such an advantage was nonetheless documented. The research also points out potentially interesting features of study abroad participants’ dispositions toward language learning, suggesting a role for a sojourn abroad in preparing students for further study. Students who choose and are encouraged to study abroad may well be more inclined than their stay-at-home peers to explore language in the first place, but, for example, study abroad appears to enhance linguistic maturity and readiness for advanced grammar instruction (Isabelli 2007). Study abroad may also improve students’ confidence in their reading abilities (Dewey 2004), motivation to write well (Sasaki 2004), or perceived need for foreign language literacy (Huebner 1995). It upgrades their awareness of register as well as their ability to perform appropriately (Kinginger 2008), and thus may enhance their general sensitivity to the role of language in shaping social contexts. Access to a variety of ways to enact the ‘same’ social positions may promote flexibility in communicative repertoires along with greater ability to perceive variation in language use and adapt one’s own language accordingly (Matsumura 2007). Thus, even if the concrete benefits of study abroad are not in clear evidence when examining performance at the end of the sojourn, there may be longer-term and more subtle advantages accruing to study abroad participants as language learners.

210


Another question emerging from this review concerns the uniqueness of study abroad as an environment for language learning. Are there aspects of language that can only be learned, or are best learned, abroad? The usual way to handle this question is to design studies comparing the performance of students who go abroad with that of their counterparts who continue to study the language in a home-based classroom. However, as Rees and Klapper (2008) have pointed out, it is very difficult to determine the extent to which the groups in question are truly comparable at the beginning of the project, since the motives and histories of the participants are rarely described. Meanwhile, doubt is cast upon the relative value of study abroad in a study such as Freed, Segalowitz, and Dewey (2004), where a domestic immersion program was shown to offer significantly more time-on-task for language learning, and corresponding increases in fluency, as compared with a study abroad program. Even though there is substantial evidence to show that study abroad can further social interactive abilities, adding specific socially relevant elements to students’ repertoires, there is little proof that these abilities emerge uniquely from access to host communities though study abroad. Only one study (Shardakova 2005) expressly compares students of advanced and intermediate proficiency, with and without a study abroad experience, to show that study abroad participants alone learn to conceptualize communicative settings as native speakers do, and may choose to act accordingly. For all of the advantages it confers to language learners, study abroad is not a magic formula or a cure-all for language-learning problems. Study abroad can advance language learning but does not instantly transform students into simulacra of native speakers. Researchers are typically very careful to point out that the glass is half empty, with distance separating the performance of their participants with that of native speakers providing baseline data. Students learn to perform speech acts, but do not perform them in the same manner as native speakers do. Students develop the ability to vary their speech styles according to the formality or informality of situations, but over-estimate the applicability of informal styles. Students produce more complex syntactic structures but have yet to fully master the subjunctive. In the US-based literature in particular, because many Americans experience only one extended out-of-country stay, the reader comes away with the impression that the gains made in study abroad are final, and represent the end of the language-learning process. One way to re-frame this tendency is simply to point out that the glass is also half full. Development of highly advanced abilities in additional languages requires


a significant investment of time, and study abroad probably does not offer the long-term engagement required to reach native-like performance in most cases. The achievements of students abroad should be recognized as such, with encouragement and opportunities for further study. Another way is to recall the privilege of the non-native speaker (Kramsch 1997) within which language learners choose to appropriate or resist the communicative practices of host communities, and may not want to resemble native speakers in every way. Native speakers do not have to be framed as distant models in every case, but can be reinterpreted as resources in the learner’s discovery process. In either case, in order to be useful, the evaluation of study abroad outcomes can and should be realistic. Meanwhile, the outcomes-oriented literature on language learning in study abroad is filled with accounts of individual differences, sometimes left without explanation, sometimes explained though speculation about affective variables such as motivation or personality traits such as extraversion, sometimes briefly contextualized with anecdotal information about how the students spent their time. If individual differences are amplified by study abroad, one way to explore this problem is to become more systematic in documenting the ways in which students use their time abroad. Sometimes this strategy yields easily interpretable results, as in the case of the Freed, Segalowitz, and Dewey study (2004) previously mentioned, or in the case of Isabelli-García’s (2006) investigation of social networks. In both studies, documentation of students’ amount and type of engagement with foreign language– mediated activities showed, not surprisingly, that gains in fluency or proficiency could be traced to amounts of language use. In another study, however (Ginsburg and Miller 2000), no correlation could be established between what students said they did, and how far their proficiency developed. Could it be that documentation of students’ use of time or even of their social networks alone is not enough to explain why some students prosper and others founder? Turning to the research on the qualities of study abroad, it quickly becomes clear that these experiences are highly varied. Their potential depends, on the one hand, upon how students are received in the contexts they frequent, and, on the other, upon how these same students opt to interpret their surroundings and host communities. In classrooms, students may be surprised to encounter norms for interaction and expectations for academic literacy that are quite unfamiliar, and may generate conflict. They may try to match their own performance to the local norms, they may complain, sometimes bitterly, or they may

212


flee the classroom in favor of more informal interactive settings. In the homestay, many families devote considerable effort to the comfort and language-learning needs of their charges, but some limit their interactions with visiting students to ritual greetings and TV dinners. Some students approach their hosts willingly and try to make a contribution to family life, and others hide in their bedrooms or become alienated following interactions interpreted as conflictual. Outside the home and the classroom, some students develop close, personal ties to the host community through local organizations, internship opportunities, or service learning arrangements. Others cling to their compatriots, escape through group travel, or re-attach themselves to home via the electronic umbilical cord of the Internet. The literature on questions of identity further refines an awareness of the relationship between language learning and study abroad. These studies show how stances toward language learning emerge from students’ own social history. Students abroad are usually at the periphery of communities of practice in their host communities, where they may or may not want or be granted the status of legitimate participants. When they are confronted with unfamiliar identity-related practices, or when they are interpreted as representatives of a particular demographic category (gender, race, or nationality), they naturally invoke familiar interpretive resources. Some may choose to recoil from engagement in local practices into stances of national superiority based on patriotic collective remembering or beliefs about gender equity. Others, however, pursue language learning in a specific attempt to imagine themselves anew or, if they come from a background where multilingualism and mobility capital are valued, they may be well prepared to frame difference as an opportunity to learn. These studies show that student perceptions, grounded in ideology, relate closely to the dynamics of motivation. They begin to illustrate why some students can be categorized as language learners and others cannot. Studies of language socialization in host family settings offer a closeup of the kinds of interactions in which students abroad are likely to participate. In homestay settings, students can receive rich information, woven into language lessons, about the tastes, worldviews, values, and diverse identities of their hosts. They may participate in two-way socializing encounters in which differences in folk theories are set forth for mutual consideration, but they may also be implicitly positioned as incompetent homestay family pets, or, in the early stages of learning, they may rely entirely on familiar norms of classroom talk. These studies also suggest that students’ and educators’ image of language use in


study abroad settings should not be confined to standard forms. In interactions with their hosts, students are likely to encounter many varieties of language, including Foreigner Talk but also local, generational, occupational, or gender-based varieties that are not likely to be reflected in standard tests of proficiency. In summary, study abroad is a rich, complicated, and occasionally confounding context for language-learning research. To date, researchers have shown that language learning of many kinds takes place in study abroad, that abilities related to frequent practice in social interactive settings are particularly salient in the repertoires of participants, and that study abroad may have subtle effects on students’ orientation toward language learning. However, study abroad is no insurance policy against communicative incompetence: students rarely attain native-like abilities, and some students perform demonstrably better than others. The search for reasons underlying varying and occasionally disappointing outcomes has led researchers to interrogate the nature of communicative settings and socializing encounters, showing that study abroad experiences are quite diverse and their quality dependent both on the reception extended to students and on the students’ own dispositions toward learning.

Limitations Scholarly interest in language learning abroad has yielded a considerable number of studies and has inspired much creativity on the part of researchers. As a research base, however, the literature on this topic displays many limitations in scope and design. With the exception of a few larger-scale and well-supported studies (Carroll 1967; Brecht, Davidson, and Ginsburg 1995; Coleman 1996; Collentine and Freed 2004), the research in this domain appears to be a largely uncoordinated and piecemeal affair, with individual scholars or small groups of researchers pursuing diverse interests within their own institutions. Over the history of study abroad research related to language, scholars have followed general trends in the broader fields of SLA and applied linguistics, contributing to the diversity of studies but also to difficulties in classifying and comparing them. There is much to critique about the scope of research on language learning abroad. Most obvious is the limitation on the populations studied. The great majority of research projects have focused on US-based students, no doubt in part because of the crucial role attributed to study abroad in a society undervaluing language learning in general.

214


There are signs that this imbalance is beginning to be addressed both in assessment-based studies such as those of the SALA group in Spain (e.g., Juan-Garau and Pérez-Vidal 2007; Mora 2008) and in qualitative work including students from around the world (Byram and Feng 2006). Meanwhile, however, readers should be cautious in generalizing from research focused on American students. The perspectives and achievements of students with modest proficiency and little experience of border crossing may not be entirely comparable to those of students holding substantial societal, familial, or personal mobility capital (Murphy-Lejeune 2002). In terms of conceptualizations of language, there are also limits on the scope of study abroad research. We have seen the field struggling to move from a largely conservative and academic imagination and toward more usage-based models that would better reflect the authentic, living language that students discover abroad. In the research based on standard assessment tools such as the ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview or any number of other tests, it is legitimate to question the ecological validity of many studies. It is unclear, in many cases, that the measured phenomena are truly representative of students’ communicative repertoires (Polanyi 1995). Problems of ecological validity begin to be addressed in studies moving away from holistic testing instruments and toward scrutiny of discourse, actional, or sociolinguistic abilities, but there is still far to go. Corpus-based descriptions of language use and assessment tools (McCarthy 2006), for example, have yet to be employed in study abroad research in any serious way, and this means researchers are bypassing an important opportunity to base their investigations on robust, massively empirical descriptions of language use. Many domains of language competence are under-represented in the study abroad research. For example, only a few studies have been devoted to explorations of developing foreign language literacy, despite professional awareness that literacy practices vary across cultures and may pose significant challenges for students. Research on the social and pragmatic dimensions of language learning abroad is concentrated in the domain of speech acts, of which only a few have been investigated. In the literature on sociolinguistic variation, one language only (French) appears to have drawn concerted attention from one group of researchers. Investigations of fluency concentrate on the monologic performances of individuals and do not take into account the dialogic unfolding of fluency as interlocutors collaborate to create it. Investigations of communicative settings are similarly limited. Scholars have largely ignored the classroom and the educational institutions


frequented by students abroad, and have only begun to explore the homestay, with little documentation or comparison of the homestay with other options for residence. Several studies have been based on close observation of language use in homestay settings, but we still know very little about the extent to which the homestay conveys a real advantage for language learning. There is some research on the reported use of students’ time abroad, on the social networks they join, and on their stances they adopt toward their experience, but there are few truly ethnographic studies placing student reports in the context of local values and communicative practices. In terms of research design, there are issues to be addressed both by researchers measuring outcomes and by those committed to qualitative approaches. In the quantitative research, there are problems of scale, with many studies involving only small convenience samples of participants not selected randomly or by any other rigorous procedure. The default scenario appears to be modest and poorly funded projects in which individual scholars or small groups work with cohorts of students from their own institutions. In addition to the questionable ecological validity previously mentioned, as Rees and Klapper point out (2008), these studies can display a cavalier approach to statistical analysis, occasionally yielding inflated claims of significance for the results. As they further argue, there is as yet no proof that study abroad is better than other contexts for language learning, because there is a dilemma inherent in the efforts of scholars to include both experimental and control groups in their studies. To establish a reasonable control group in these studies, it would be necessary to match the participants on affective and attitudinal variables. Given two groups of students who all want to go abroad and display strong motivation to learn languages, the only way to establish a control group would be to deny study abroad to some, a clearly unethical move. All these critiques suggest that readers should regard experimental research designs with a skeptical eye, and consider carefully how results were obtained before relying upon them as a basis for action. In the qualitative literature, numerous researchers have either explicitly or implicitly adopted principles of grounded theory (Strauss and Corbin 1990), in which themes are assumed to emerge from the data under the care of scholars who strive to set aside their own agendas in favor of allowing the data to speak for themselves. This analytic process is, according to Pavlenko (2007: 167), potentially ‘naïve and misleading, because it obscures the sociohistoric and cultural influences on the researcher’s conceptual lens.’ Qualitative researchers inevitably

216


write from within their own sociocultural locus, and need to analyze their data rather than using them to perpetuate negative images of the world outside their own societies. Without this move, we may continue to read accounts in which gender-related, educational, or other practices of host communities will be condemned without a trial. At the very least, the qualitative literature needs to expand its scope beyond attempts to achieve an insider’s perspective on student perceptions. It should include the perceptions of the host community as well, at least in the process of analysis if not in the data collection itself. It should also involve the people who are most aware of the qualities of student experience: the professionals who organize and run study abroad programs. At the same time, the research needs to analyze how study abroad participants are enjoined to position themselves by their own social history. The study abroad research includes very few references to social class, for example (Block 2007b), even though general cosmopolitanism and mobility capital are very likely to influence the nature of the experience. Ideally, the findings of these projects would be analyzed in comparative international perspective, with an emphasis on the sociohistoric origins of views about education abroad and language learning, and willingness to examine the sources of difference and conflict when they arise. A further limitation of the study abroad research is the chasm that apparently divides scholarship on the measurement and assessment of outcomes from ethnographic and other socially grounded accounts of the experience. This divide has serious consequences for the interpretability of both varieties of scholarship. A focus on measurement, without reference to the qualities of the experience, leaves the researcher bereft of resources for explaining findings, especially in the many cases where marked individual differences emerge or where gains are noticeably modest. A commitment to emic perspectives on the study abroad sojourn may yield compelling findings about the varieties of interactive language use in study abroad settings, but it does not explain how these opportunities result in learning. Elsewhere in the language-learning literature, a ‘social turn in second language acquisition’ (Block 2003) is present, and scholars promote tolerance for methodological ecumenicalism in the interest of solving educational problems (Dewaele 2005; Ortega 2005). These authors argue for studies combining a focus on language development with an interest in students’ lives, yet in the study abroad literature, few such projects exist. All these limitations should be acknowledged and taken into account whenever the research is invoked to provide rationales for educational


practice, but this need does not discount the insight that can be gleaned from attending to scholarly findings. On the contrary, much of the language-related study abroad research to date has been conducted with integrity and ingenuity. Its findings are relevant for all parties interested in international education.

Future research For language-learning researchers, the clearest obligation emerging from this book is to address the limitations of the contemporary knowledge base outlined above. It will be important to expand the scope of scholarly inquiry to include diverse combinations of sending and receiving countries. Work is needed to improve the ecological validity of the research through more representative models of language, and of the social interactive aspects of language in particular. There is room for continued inquiry into every aspect of language development, and a clear need for more investigations of the settings frequented by students abroad. Researchers primarily interested in the measurement or documentation of outcomes should try to solve problems of scale and design, and qualitative researchers should broaden their perspective beyond the perceptions of students, to include the other people who shape the nature of study abroad. In the presentation of research, there is a need for more careful description of program design, and the extent to which these programs actually promote and organize opportunities for language learning. In the applied linguistics literature, very often study abroad is interpreted primarily as a context for language learning and not, for example, as a context for enhanced self-awareness, coming-of-age in a globalized world, reenacting colonialism (Ogden 2007) or bungee jumping and drinking on an exotic backdrop (Feinberg 2002). Programs of study abroad offer a broad range of occasions for learning, with some expressly promoting general cultural edification through tourism over language learning, yet readers of the literature are expected to assume that, somehow, language is everywhere part of the picture. Similarly, more insight is needed into the motives and dispositions of study abroad participants, whether or not and to what extent they can truly be cast as language learners (Kinginger 2008). Students prioritize language learning to varying degrees and for a host of different reasons, yet readers of reports about study abroad must accept on faith the notion that all participants in many studies really do want and have been enjoined in a serious way to learn languages.

218


Study abroad research would benefit from efforts to overcome its own parochialism, both in terms of scope and in terms of methodology. Some of the most intriguing findings come from projects involving teams of researchers employing quite different methods of inquiry, such as the narrative work of Polanyi (1995) in concert with the search for factors predicting proficiency gains by Brecht, Davidson, and Ginsburg (1995). Methodological ecumenicalism might be of great service to study abroad research, as would the contemporary ecological approaches to SLA in which language learning is seen as tied to concrete sociohistorical and cultural contexts (Lantolf and Thorne 2006) and coterminous with embodied experience of the world (van Lier 2008). Similarly, when the findings of American research documenting perceptions of sexual harassment in France (e.g., Kline 1998) are compared with a study of French students abroad who complain that they are not sufficiently harassed (Patron 2007) it becomes clear that collaborative international projects might promote dialogue and mutual understanding, and generate far more insight than do inquiries restricted to one group alone. Researchers from sending and receiving societies might work together to gather data on student perceptions, and use these data as a basis for productive interchange and resolution of conflict. One of the most pressing questions for study abroad researchers is the relationship between language learning and changing communicative practices and worldviews brought on by intensified globalization. Globalization has been defined as the ‘intensification of worldwide social relations’ as ‘the constraints of geography’ are decreasingly relevant (Block and Cameron 2002: 1), and raises questions about the benefits that accrue to students who change places. According to Block and Cameron (2002) globalization has changed the conditions for language learning, and, as previously described, these transformations are in clear evidence in the case of study abroad. If students now control their own communicative environments to an unprecedented extent, relying on first language media, computer-mediated interactions with people at home, and easy access to travel, and if English has now become the acknowledged lingua mundi, these changes will certainly influence the qualities of study abroad experiences and the motives of participants. Moreover, if a worldwide socio-economic hierarchy now encourages the most affluent 10–15 percent of the population to adopt a consumerist approach to education, interpreting travel as a homogenized entertainment and shopping experience, it will surely become more difficult to foreground the intrinsic humanitarian benefits of language learning.


These concerns are not new, of course. Schumann (1980) lamented the fact that her interlocutors were more likely to practice their English with her than to allow her to try out her Farsi, and Twombly (1995) noted that American female students in Costa Rica preferred turning on their Walkman to hearing the piropos addressed to them in the street. A consumerist approach to study abroad has always been part of the picture, at least for elite American students (Levenstein 2004). But given the pervasive impact of these forces, it is imperative that researchers understand and describe their effect on conditions for language learning in study abroad. We have little basis for a historical comparison of results, although there is the puzzlement of Rees and Klapper (2007) who, having administered the same instrument as the one employed more than a decade earlier by Coleman (1996), could not explain why their students appeared to have developed so much less proficiency than the participants in the prior research. Could it be that language-learning opportunities in study abroad have eroded to the point where the difference is measurable? Beyond speculation of this type, in any case, it is clear that these questions deserve the attention of scholars in language education. The field requires ways to conceptualize engagement in language learning that can exploit the affordances of participation both in local and in global communities, and imaginative efforts to sustain the value of this engagement.

Policy From the perspective of justifying investment in student sojourns abroad, the take-away message from this review of research is that, on balance, study abroad promotes language learning. This finding is not in itself surprising. Carroll’s (1967) survey supported a widespread and generally well-founded assumption that sojourns abroad contribute to the overall proficiency of a nation’s language specialists. Subsequently, scholars have developed increasingly fine-grained assessments of the abilities that students bring home from their in-country languagelearning experiences. Classrooms can offer valuable and even essential resources to language learners, but they cannot easily or efficiently provide the range of socially and practically consequential interactions that students need in order to develop advanced proficiency, including communicative autonomy and a broad repertoire applicable to formal and informal situations. In well-designed programs, study abroad connects students with the meanings of the forms whose abstract versions may appear in teaching materials. It encourages empathy through an

220


insider’s view of another society’s linguistic and cultural resources and therefore has far-reaching potential for fostering an analytic rather than a judgmental approach to others and to intercultural communication more broadly. In an ideal world, study abroad would be made maximally accessible to students from all socio-economic backgrounds who sincerely wish to learn languages. As previously mentioned, however, study abroad is not in itself a solution to the challenge of promoting an interculturally aware and multilingual citizenry. In the 21st century, the spread of global communications has de-emphasized people’s active engagement in local realities: the advantages accruing to students who change places cannot be assumed and need to be pursued. If the aim is to achieve advanced language proficiency, there is a clear need for investment in the quality of programs explicitly designed to further this goal. There is also a need to support language learners over the long-term, offering preparation for study abroad, assistance in the interpretation of their perceptions, and study plans allowing learners who return from abroad to take advantage of their linguistic maturity to nurture and refine their language ability. Policy makers should also support further research on language learning in study abroad contexts. As we have seen, the efforts to understand this phenomenon are relatively modest and poorly coordinated in comparison to other areas of education: many researchers clearly do not have access to the resources that would allow them to envisage large-scale or collaborative projects, or to invest significant time and effort to in-depth study of students’ activities and interactions abroad. Well-supported research, particularly if it involves collaboration among scholars of different expertise and methodological bent, tends to have noteworthy impact, especially in a field where so few major projects have been realized to date.

Language education As noted in the introduction to this book, the integration of study abroad into the curriculum is a rare preoccupation of language educators. Often, a relatively simplistic view is adopted in which study abroad is a context inherently superior to the classroom. Taken to its extreme, this view can lead to the conclusion that there is no need to retain a language faculty, and that students should just be sent abroad if they want to learn languages. The professional folklore would have us believe that there is little that language teachers can or should do to influence students’ experience abroad. After all, one of the reasons for sending


students abroad in the first place is to release them from the confines of the classroom and the protective but limiting oversight of their teachers. For language educators, a key lesson of this book is that language learning in study abroad is part of a long-term process that needs to be better apprehended and cultivated in its entirety. In designing language education for the long term, educators should carefully consider those aspects of language development that are best fostered in a sheltered classroom environment, and those that require students’ active engagement in a broad array of extra-pedagogical interactive settings. For example, the refinement of students’ grammatical competence appears to rely upon explicit instruction, at least in some domains, and the development of academic literacy is obviously best achieved in the classroom. Sensitivity to registers and varieties, on one hand, or the ability to manipulate a range of formal and informal speech acts, on the other hand, seem to emerge from lived experience revealing the social meaning of linguistic choices. Before students participate in study abroad programs, teachers can play a part in their understanding of the distinct advantages they may enjoy as language learners, as outlined in this book, and help them to formulate realistic goals. They can work to upgrade students’ language awareness by pointing out the significance of each domain of communicative competence, helping students to see beyond the grammar and vocabulary normally featured in ‘folklinguistic theories’ (Miller and Ginsburg 1995). Through Internet-mediated communication, they can alert students to local realities abroad (Pertusa-Seva and Stewart 2000), link students to their peers in the places where they will later study (Kinginger 2004b), develop intercultural awareness of daily life and educational systems (Zeiss and Isabelli-García 2005), and offer practice in the specific skills required of intercultural speakers in informal interaction (Tudini 2007). While they are abroad, teachers can impress upon students the importance of active engagement in local realities and social networks, advise them on how to approach their host families, or help them place intercultural conflict in broader perspective. Teachers can counsel students to choose programs explicitly foregrounding language learning and taking specific steps to further their involvement in local communities (e.g., Engle and Engle 1999; Tschirner 2007) and they can encourage the practice of engaging in multiple sojourns abroad (Ingram 2005). Teachers can also propose projects requiring interaction with local people (Archangeli 1999; Raschio 2001), including service learning (Kiely

222


and Nielson 2003) and ethnographic inquiry (Jurasek, Lamson, and O’Maley 1995; Roberts et al. 2001; Jackson 2006). When students return, teachers can offer challenging courses designed to complement the achievements of study abroad that are typical for their students. An emphasis on advanced literacy practices, for example, would serve to round out the abilities of students who return from study abroad with highly advanced social interactive skills. Programs can offer foreign language reading sections of regular advanced courses, on the model of Languages Across the Curriculum (Straight 1998) for students who wish to maintain and refine the language ability developed abroad. Courses in language analysis could prompt students’ awareness of their own repertoires and of areas where progress is still necessary, and, of course, student returnees can provide peer-to-peer mentoring in support of their classmates’ success in language learning abroad. The findings outlined in this book offer a basis for advocacy on behalf of student wishing to develop high levels of foreign language competence. Teachers can and should point to the specific achievements of students abroad as they promote international education in general and efforts to enhance study abroad in particular. The findings of research demonstrate that study abroad can in fact become an extremely rich language-learning environment, provided that language is prioritized both by programs and by students.

Conclusion This book offers one account of the research related to language learning in study abroad contexts. My perspective on this issue is inescapably shaped by my own experiences, as a language learner, teacher, and researcher with long-standing interest in the potential of language education to further humanitarian goals, promote civic engagement, and nurture the imagination of individual students. I believe, with Falk and Kanach (2000), that multilingualism is a key prerequisite for global awareness and that language learning, especially when it involves ‘a personal stake which extends one’s identity’ (Murphy-Lejeune 2002: 104), offers unique forms of insight, empathy, and creativity. My first inspiration for this book was to find out for myself what the research had to say about study abroad as an environment for language learning, in part because study abroad had a decisive influence on my own life, and in part because my own research on this topic had turned up numerous mysteries and questions about what students do and do not learn abroad, and why. In embarking on this project,


I was aware that there had been mixed results in some areas, and had myself witnessed students who appeared to have forgotten some of what they knew about French while studying in France. I knew that many reports referenced considerable individual differences, but I did not know much about what these differences mean, nor did I know how others had pursued this question. It had always seemed reasonable to assume that study abroad leads to language learning, but my earlier and briefer explorations of the literature had been disquieting. To compose this book I have visited many corners of my professional field, and a few adjacent fields, some of which were very familiar, some I had not encountered in recent years, and some I did not know well at all. No doubt, there are important related fields and specific projects that are not represented in this book. Study abroad is not an easily circumscribed topic; it goes by many names and exists in many guises. The coverage of study abroad research here is limited by my access to materials in English and other Western European languages through my university’s databases. It is also most certainly limited in ways I cannot discern, by my own preferences, knowledge, and location as an American scholar in applied linguistics. The attempt, nonetheless, was to extend my reach as far and as broadly as possible, providing a state-of-the-art view that may inform policy, guide language educators, and point out avenues for future research. At the end of this project, it is reassuring to know that the findings generally confirm the value of study abroad for language learning, and illustrate the intricate processes by which learning unfolds in these contexts. Like every other human endeavor, study abroad is a multifaceted phenomenon, with positive and negative attributes and associated stories of success and of failure. Research on this topic poses more new questions than it answers. Yet, the overall findings, taken together, do offer a rationale for activism on behalf of students everywhere who view study abroad with bright hope for a multilingual and cosmopolitan future, and who see themselves as citizen-advocates for peace through international awareness.

Notes 1. As of October, 2007, the 30 member countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) are Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States. Website accessed October 15, 2007, http://www.oecd.org/pages/0,3417,en_36734052_ 36734103_1_1_1_1_1,00.html 2. Eastern European countries are not well represented in this literature, although they may have very different needs, goals, and resources.

224

References Adams, R. 2006. ‘Language Learning Strategies in the Study Abroad Context’, in M. A. DuFon and E. Churchill (eds), op. cit., pp. 259–92. Agar, M. 1994. Language Shock: Understanding the Culture of Conversation. New York: William Morrow and Company. Allen, H. and Herron, C. 2003. ‘A Mixed-Methodology Investigation of the Linguistic and Affective Outcomes of Summer Study Abroad’, Foreign Language Annals, 36, 3, 370–85. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL). 1986. ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines C Speaking. New York: ACTFL. Anderson, R. 1983. The Architecture of Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Archangeli, M. 1999. ‘Study Abroad and Experiential Learning in Salzburg, Austria’, Foreign Language Annals, 32, 1, 115–24. Austin, J. L. 1975. How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ayano, M. 2006. ‘Japanese Students in Britain’, in M. Byram and A. Feng (eds), Living and Studying Abroad: Research and Practice. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, pp. 11–37. Bacon, S. 2002. ‘Learning the Rules: Language Development and Cultural Adjustment During Study Abroad’, Foreign Language Annals, 35, 6, 637–46. Bailey, K. and Ochsner, R. 1983. ‘A Methodological Review of the Diary Studies: Windmill Tilting or Social Science?’, in K. Bailey, M. Long, and S. Peck (eds), Second Language Acquisition Studies. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, pp. 188–98. Ball, R. 1997. The French Speaking World: A Practical Introduction to Sociolinguistic Issues. London: Routledge. Barnwell, D. 1989. ‘Proficiency and the Native Speaker’, ADFL Bulletin, 20, 2, 42–6. Barron, A. 2003. Acquisition in Interlanguage Pragmatics: Learning How to Do Things with Words in a Study Abroad Context. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Barron, A. 2006. ‘Learning to Say “You” in German: The Acquisition of Sociolinguistic Competence in a Study Abroad Context’, in M. A. DuFon and E. Churchill (eds), op. cit., pp. 59–88. Becker, A. L. 1988. ‘Language in Particular: A Lecture’, in D. Tannen (ed.), Linguistics in Context: Connecting Observation and Understanding. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 17–35. Bégaudeau, F. 2006. Entre les murs. Paris: Editions Gallimard. Belz, J. 2002. ‘The Myth of the Deficient Communicator’, Language Teaching Research, 6, 1, 59–82. Bennett, M. 1986. ‘A Developmental Approach to Training for Intercultural Sensitivity’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10, 179–96. Bernhardt, E. 1998. ‘Sociohistorical Perspectives on Language Teaching in the Modern United States’, in H. Byrnes (ed.), Learning Foreign and Second 225

226

References

Languages: Perspectives in Research and Scholarship. New York: Modern Language Association, pp. 39–57. Bialystok, E. 1993. ‘Symbolic Representation and Attentional Control in Pragmatic Competence’, in G. Kasper and S. Blum-Kulka (eds), Interlanguage Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 43–57. Block, D. 2003. The Social Turn in Second Language Acquisition. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Block, D. 2007a. Second Language Identities. London: Continuum. Block, D. 2007b. ‘The Rise of Identity in SLA Research, Post Firth and Wagner’, Modern Language Journal, 91, Focus Issue, 863–76. Block, D. and Cameron, D. (eds). 2002. Globalization and Language Teaching. London: Routledge. Bourdieu, P. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power. London: Polity Press. Bouton, L. 1992. ‘The Interpretation of Implicature in English by NNS: Does it Come Automatically Without Being Explicitly Taught?’, Pragmatics and Language Learning Monograph Series, 3, 66–77. Brecht, R. D., Davidson, D. and Ginsburg, R. 1995. ‘Predictors of Foreign Language Gain During Study Abroad’, in B. Freed (ed.), op. cit., pp. 37–66. Brecht, R. D., Frank, V., Keesling, J. W., O’Mara, F. and Walton, A. R. 1997. A Guide for Evaluating Foreign Language Immersion Training. Washington, DC: Defense Language Institute, Foreign Language Committee. Brecht, R. D. and Robinson, J. L. 1995. ‘The Value of Formal Instruction in Study Abroad: Student Reactions in Context’, in B. Freed (ed.), op. cit., pp. 317–34. Brinton, L. 1996. Pragmatic Markers in English. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Bronfenbrenner, U. 1979. The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Butler, Y. and Iino, M. 2005. ‘Current Japanese Reforms in English Language Education: The 2003 “Action Plan”’, Language Policy, 4, 25–45. Byram, M. 1997. Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Byram, M. and Feng, A. (eds). 2006. Living and Studying Abroad: Research and Practice. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Byrnes, H. 2007. ‘Perspectives’, Modern Language Journal, 91, 4, 641–85. Cain, A. and Zarate, G. 1996. ‘The Role of Training Courses in Developing Openness to Otherness: From Tourism to Ethnography’, Language, Culture and Curriculum, 9, 1, 66–83. Cantet, L. 2008. Entre les murs. Films Haut et Court. Carlson, J. S., Burn, B. B., Useem, J. and Yachimowicz, D. 1990. Study Abroad: The Experience of American Undergraduates. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Carroll, J. 1967. ‘Foreign Language Proficiency Levels Attained by Language Majors Near Graduation from College’, Foreign Language Annals, 1, 1, 131–51. Carroll, R. 1987. Evidences invisibles: Américains et français au quotidien. Paris: Seuil. Carson, J. G. and Longhini, A. 2002. ‘Focusing on Learning Styles and Strategies: A Diary Study in an Immersion Setting’, Language Learning, 52, 2, 401–38. Celce-Murcia, C., Dörnyei, Z. and Thurell, S. 1995. ‘Communicative Competence: A Pedagogically Motivated Model with Content Specifications’, Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6, 2, 5–35. Churchill, E. 2005. ‘A Case Study of Gendered Language Learning at Home and Abroad’, Paper presented at the Association Internationale de Linguistique Appliquée (AILA), Madison, WI, July.

References

227

Churchill, E. 2006. ‘Variability in the Study Abroad Classroom and Learner Competence’, in M. A. DuFon and E. Churchill (eds), op. cit., pp. 203–27. Cicourel, A. 2007. ‘A Personal, Retrospective View of Ecological Validity’, Text and Talk, 27, 5, 735–52. Cohen, A. and Shively, R. 2007. ‘Acquisition of Requests and Apologies in Spanish and French: Impact of Study Abroad and Strategy-Building Intervention’, Modern Language Journal, 91, 2, 189–212. Coleman, J. A. 1996. Studying Languages: A Survey of British and European Students: The Proficiency, Background, Attitudes and Motivations of Students of Foreign Languages in the United Kingdom and Europe. London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research. Coleman, J. A. 1997. ‘Residence Abroad within Language Study’, Language Teaching, 30, 1–20. Coleman, J. A. 1998. ‘Language Learning and Study Abroad: The European Perspective’, Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 4, 167–203. Coleman, J. A. 2006. ‘Study Abroad Research: A New Global Overview’, Paper presented at the joint annual meetings of the American Association for Applied Linguistics and the Canadian Association for Applied Linguistics, Montreal, June. Collentine, J. 2004. ‘The Effects of Learning Contexts on Morpho-Syntactic Development’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 2, 227–48. Collentine, J. and Freed, B. (eds). 2004. Learning Context and its Effects on Second Language Acquisition. Special issue of Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 2. Commission on the Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Fellowship Program. 2005. Global Competence and National Needs: One Million Americans Studying Abroad. Retrieved March 15, 2006 from http://www.lincolncommission.org. Cook, H. 2006. ‘Joint Construction of Folk Beliefs by JFL Learners and Japanese Host Families’, in M. A. DuFon and E. Churchill (eds), op. cit., pp. 120–50. Cook, V. 1995. ‘Multi-Competence and the Learning of Many Languages’, Language, Culture, and Curriculum, 8, 2, 93–8. Council of Europe. 2008. About the Council of Europe. Retrieved July 4, 2008 from http://www.coe.int/T/e/Com/about_coe/. Coveney, A. 2000. ‘Vestiges of NOUS and the 1st Person Plural Verb in Informal Spoken French’, Language Sciences, 22, 3, 447–81. Cubillos, J., Chieffo, L. and Fan, C. 2007. ‘The Impact of Short-Term Study Abroad Programs on L2 Listening Comprehension Skills’, Foreign Language Annals, 41, 1, 157–85. Davie, J. 1996. ‘Language Skills, Course Development, and the Year Abroad’, Language Learning Journal, 13, 73–6. Davies, B. and Harré, R. 1990. ‘Positioning: The Discursive Production of Selves’, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 20, 1, 43–63. DeLey, H. 1975. ‘Organized Programs of Study in France: Some Contributions of Stranger Theory’, French Review, 48, 5, 836–47. DeKeyser, R. 1991. ‘Foreign Language Development During a Semester Abroad’, in B. F. Freed (ed.), Foreign Language Acquisition Research and the Classroom. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath, pp. 104–31. Dewaele, J.-M. 2004. ‘Vous or tu? Native and Non-Native Speakers of French on a Sociolinguistic Tightrope’, International Review of Applied Linguistics, 42, 383–402.

228

References

Dewaele, J.-M. 2005. ‘Investigating the Psychological and Emotional Dimensions in Instructed Language Learning: Obstacles and Possibilities’, Modern Language Journal, 89, 3, 367–80. Dewaele, J.-M. and Planchenault, G. 2006. ‘ La Perception de la Difficulté du Système des Pronoms d’Adresse en Français’, in M. Faraco (ed.), La classe de langue: Théories, méthodes, pratiques. Aix-en-Provence: Publications de l’Université de Provence, pp. 153–71. Dewaele, J. M. and Regan, V. 2001. ‘The Use of Colloquial Words in Advanced French Interlanguage’, EUROSLA Yearbook, 1, 205–26. Dewaele, J. M. and Regan, V. 2002. ‘Maîtriser la Norme Sociolinguistique en Interlangue Française: Le Cas de l’Omission Variable de “ne”’, Journal of French Language Studies, 12, 123–48. Dewey, D. 2004. ‘A Comparison of Reading Development by Learners of Japanese in Intensive Domestic Immersion and Study Abroad Contexts’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 2, 303–27. Dewey, D. 2007. ‘Reading Comprehension and Vocabulary Development in Orthographically Complex Languages During Study Abroad’, in S. Wilkinson (ed.), Insights from Study Abroad for Language Programs. Boston: Thomson Heinle, pp. 72–83. Díaz-Campos, M. 2004. ‘Context of Learning in the Acquisition of Spanish Second Language Phonology’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 2, 249–73. Dolby, N. 2004. ‘Encountering an American Self: Study Abroad and National Identity’, Comparative Education Review, 48, 2, 150–73. Duff, P. A. 2002. ‘The Discursive Co-Construction of Knowledge, Identity, and Difference: An Ethnography of Communication in the High School Mainstream’, Applied Linguistics, 23, 3, 289–322. DuFon, M. 2000. The Acquisition of Linguistic Politeness in Indonesian by Sojourners in Naturalistic Interactions. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Hawaii, Manoa. DuFon, M. A. 2006. ‘The Socialization of Taste During Study Abroad in Indonesia’, in DuFon, M. and E. Churchill (eds), op. cit., pp. 91–119. DuFon, M. A. and Churchill, E. (eds). 2006. Language Learners in Study Abroad Contexts. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Duperron, L. 2006. ‘Study Abroad and the Second Language Acquisition of Tense and Aspect in French: Is Longer Better?’, in S. Wilkinson (ed.), Insights from Study Abroad for Language Programs. AAUSC Issues in Language Program Direction. Boston: Thomson Heinle, pp. 45–67. Dyson, P. 1988. The Year Abroad. London: Central Bureau for Educational Exchanges and Visits. Eckert, P. and McConnell-Ginet, S. 1992. ‘Think Practically and Look Locally: Language and Gender as Community-Based Practice’, Annual Review of Anthropology, 21, 461–90. Edmondson, W. J. 1986. ‘Some Ways in Which the Teacher Brings Errors into Being’, in G. Kasper (ed.), Learning, Teaching, and Communication in the Foreign Language Classroom. Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus University Press, pp. 111–23. Einbeck, K. 2002. ‘Using Literature to Promote Cultural Fluency in Study Abroad Programs’, Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German, 35, 1, 59–67.

References

229

Ellis, R. 1986. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. New York: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. 1997. Second Language Acquisition. New York: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. 2000. Second Language Acquisition. New York: Oxford University Press. Engle, J. and Engle, L. 1999. ‘Program Intervention in the Process of Cultural Integration: The Example of French Practicum’, Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 5, 39–59. Europa: Gateway to the European Union. 2008. Retrieved July 4, 2008 from http://www.europa.eu/abc/12lessons/lesson_1/index_en.htm. European Commission. 2007. ‘The ERASMUS Program Celebrates its 20th Anniversary’, Retrieved July 4, 2008 from http://www.ec.europa.eu/education/ news/ erasmus20_en.html. Evans, C. 1988. Language People: The Experience of Teaching and Learning Modern Languages in British Universities. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Fairclough, N. 1992. ‘The Appropriacy of Appropriateness’, in N. Fairclough (ed.), Critical Language Awareness. London: Routledge, pp. 233–52. Falk, R. and Kanach, N. 2000. ‘Globalization and Study Abroad: An Illusion of Paradox’, Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 4, 155–68. Feinberg, B. 2002. ‘What Students Don’t Learn Abroad’, Chronicle of Higher Education, May 3, 2002. Retrieved June 5, 2004 from http://www.chronicle.com/ weekly/v48/i34/34b02001.htm. Ferguson, C. 1977. ‘Baby Talk as Simplified Register’, in C. Snow and C. Ferguson (eds), Talking to Children. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 209–35. Firth, A. and Wagner, J. 2007. ‘On Discourse, Communication, and (Some) Fundamental Concepts in SLA Research’, Modern Language Journal, 91, Focus Issue, 757–72. Frank, V. 1997. ‘Potential Negative Effects of Homestay’, Paper presented at the Middle Atlantic Conference of the American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies, Albany, NY, 22 March. Fraser, C. 2002. ‘Study Abroad: An Attempt to Measure the Gains’, German as a Foreign Language Journal, 1, 45–65. Freed, B. F. 1990. ‘Language Learning in a Study Abroad Context: The Effects of Interactive and Noninteractive Out-of-Class contact on Grammatical Achievement and Oral Proficiency’, in J. Alatis (ed.), Linguistics, Language Teaching, and Language Acquisition: The Interdependence of Theory, Practice, and Research. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 459–77. Freed, B. F. (ed.) 1995a. Second Language Acquisition in a Study Abroad Context. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Freed, B. F. 1995b. ‘What Makes Us Think That Students who Study Abroad Become Fluent?’, in B. F. Freed (ed.), op. cit., pp. 123–48. Freed, B. F., Dewey, D., Segalowitz, N. and Halter, F. 2004. ‘The Language Contact Profile’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 2, 349–56. Freed, B. F., Segalowitz, N. and Dewey, D. 2004. ‘Contexts of Learning and Second Language Fluency in French: Comparing Regular Classrooms, Study Abroad, and Intensive Domestic Programs’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 2, 275–301. Freed, B., So, S. and Lazar, N. 2003. ‘Language Learning Abroad: How do Gains in Written Fluency Compare with Gains in Oral Fluency in French as a Second Language?’, ADFL Bulletin, 34, 3, 34–40.

230

References

Gadet, F. 1997. Le français ordinaire. Paris: Armand Colin. Gass, S. 1997. Input, Interaction, and the Second Language Learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Gass, S. and Selinker, L. 2001. Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Gershman, S. 2004. C’est La Vie: An American Conquers the City of Light, Begins a New Life, and Becomes – Zut Alors! – Almost French. New York: Viking Press. Gillette, B. 1994. ‘The Role of Learner Goals in L2 Success’, in J. P. Lantolf and G. Appel (eds), Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 195–213. Ginsburg, R. B. and Miller, L. 2000. ‘What Do They Do? Activities of Students During Study Abroad’, in R. D. Lambert and E. Shohamy (eds), Language Policy and Pedagogy: Essays in Honor of A. Ronald Walton. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins North America, pp. 237–61. Goffman, E. 1967. Interaction Ritual: Essays in Face-to-Face Behavior. New York: Pantheon. Goffman, E. 1976. ‘Replies and Responses’, Language and Society, 5, 3, 254–313. Golato, A. 2003. ‘Studying Compliment Responses: A Comparison of DCTs and Recordings of Naturally Occurring Talk’, Applied Linguistics, 24, 1, 90–121. Gore, J. E. 2005. Dominant Beliefs and Alternative Voices: Discourse, Belief, and Gender in American Study Abroad. New York: Routledge. Grieve, A. 2007. ‘The Acquisition of Pragmatic Markers by German Study Abroad Adolescents’, Paper presented at the 17th International Conference on Pragmatics and Language Learning, University of Hawaii at Manoa, March. Guiliano, M. 2005. French Women Don’t Get Fat: The Secret of Eating for Pleasure. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Guntermann, G. 1995. ‘The Peace Corps Experience: Language Learning in Training and in the Field’, in B. F. Freed (ed.), op. cit., pp. 149–69. Hashimoto, H. 1993. ‘Language Acquisition of an Exchange Student within the Homestay Environment’, Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 4, 4, 209–24. Hassall, T. 2006. ‘Learning to Take Leave in Social Conversations: A Diary Study’, in M. A. DuFon and E. Churchill (eds), op. cit., pp. 31–58. Hatch, E. 1983. ‘Simplified Input and Second Language Acquisition’, in R. Andersen (ed.), Pidginization and Creolization as Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, pp. 64–86. Hatch, E., Shapira, R. and Gough, J. 1978. ‘Foreigner-Talk Discourse’, ITL: Review of Applied Linguistics, 39–40: 39–59. Hayden, J. 1998. ‘The Influence of a Semester Abroad on Reading Proficiency: A Descriptive Study’, Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association, 33, 3, 13–24. He, A. W. 2003. ‘Novices and Their Speech Roles in Chinese Heritage Language Classes’, in R. Bayley and S. Schecter (eds), Language Socialization in Bilingual and Multilingual Societies. Clevedon, UK; Multilingual Matters, pp. 128–46. Hoffa, W. W. 2006. A History of US Study Abroad: Beginnings to 1965. Special Publication of Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad. Hoffmann-Hicks, S. 1999. The Longitudinal Development of French Foreign Language Pragmatic Competence: Evidence from Study Abroad Participants. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington.

References

231

Howard, M. 2001. ‘The Effects of Study Abroad on the L2 Learner’s Structural Skills: Evidence from Advanced Learners of French’, EUROSLA Yearbook, 1, 123–41. Howard, M. 2004. ‘Sociolinguistic Variation and Second Language Acquisition: A Study of Advanced Learners of French’, SKY Journal of Linguistics, 17, 143–65. Howard, M. 2005. ‘On the Role of Context in the Development of Learner Language: Insights from Study Abroad Research’, ITL Review of Applied Linguistics, 147–8, 1–20. Howard, M. 2006. ‘The Expression of Number and Person through Verb Morphology in Advanced French Interlanguage’, International Review of Applied Linguistics (IRAL), 44, 1–22. Howard, M., Lemée, I. and Regan, V. 2006. ‘The Acquisition of a Phonological Variable: The Case of /l/ Deletion in French’, Journal of French Language Studies, 16, 1–24. Huebner, T. 1995. ‘The Effects of Overseas Language Programs: Report on a Case Study of an Intensive Japanese Course’, in B. F. Freed (ed.), op. cit., pp. 171–93. Hymes, D. 1984. Vers la compétence de communication. Paris: Hatier-Credif. Ife, A., Vives Boix, G. and Meara, P. 2000. ‘The Impact of Study Abroad on the Vocabulary Development of Different Proficiency Groups’, Spanish Applied Linguistics, 4, 1, 55–84. Iino, M. 2006. ‘Norms of Interaction in a Japanese Homestay Setting – Toward Two-Way Flow of Linguistic and Cultural Resources’, in M. A. DuFon and E. Churchill (eds), op. cit., pp. 151–73. Ingram, M. 2005. ‘Recasting the Foreign Language Requirement Through Study Abroad: A Cultural Immersion Program in Avignon’, Foreign Language Annals, 38, 2, 211–22. Institute for International Education. 2004. Open Doors 2004 Fast Facts. Retrieved June 22, 2005 from http://www.opendoors.iienetwork.org/. Institute for International Education. 2007. Open Doors Online: Report on International Educational Exchange. Retrieved January 10, 2007 from http://www.opendoors.iienetwork.org/. Isabelli, C. A. 2007. ‘Development of the Spanish Subjunctive by Advanced Learners: Study Abroad Followed by At-Home Instruction’, Foreign Language Annals, 40, 2, 330–41. Isabelli, C. A. and Nishida, C. 2005. ‘Development of the Spanish Subjunctive in a Nine-Month Study Abroad Setting’, in D. Eddington (ed.), Selected Proceedings of the 6th Conference on the Acquisition of Spanish as First and Second Languages. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 78–91. Isabelli-García, C. L. 2006. ‘Study Abroad Social Networks, Motivation, and Attitudes: Implications for SLA’, in M. A. DuFon and E. Churchill (eds), op. cit., pp. 231–58. Iwasaki, N. 2007. ‘Assessing Progress Towards Advanced Level Japanese after a Year Abroad: Focus on Individual Students’, Japanese Language and Literature, 41, 271–96. Iwasaki, N. In press. ‘Style Shifts among Japanese Learners before and after Study Abroad: Becoming Active Social Agents in Japanese’, Applied Linguistics. Jackson, J. 2006. ‘Ethnographic Pedagogy and Evaluation in Short-Term Study Abroad’, in M. Byram and A. Feng (eds), op. cit., pp. 134–56.

232

References

Juan-Garau, M.-J. and Pérez-Vidal, C. 2007. ‘The Effect of Context and Contact on Oral Performance in Students who Go on a Stay Abroad’, Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics (VIAL), 4, 117–35. Jungheim, N. 2006. ‘Learner and Native Speaker Perspectives on a CulturallySpecific Japanese Refusal Gesture’, International review of Applied Linguistics (IRAL), 44, 125–43. Jurasek, R., Lamson, H. and O’Maley, P. 1995. ‘Ethnographic Learning in Study Abroad’, Study Abroad: Research on Learning Language and Culture in Context. Proceedings of RP-ALLA ’95. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University National Foreign Language Resource Center, pp. 62–84. Kaplan, I. 1986. ‘French in the Community: A Survey of Language Use’, French Review, 63, 2, 290–99. Kasper, G. 1982. ‘Teaching-Induced Aspects of Interlanguage Discourse’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 4, 1, 99–113. Kasper, G. 2001. ‘Four Perspectives on L2 Pragmatic Development’, Applied Linguistics, 22, 4, 502–30. Kern, R. 2003. ‘Literacy and Advanced Foreign Language Learning: Rethinking the Curriculum’, in H. Byrnes and H. Maxim (eds), Advanced Foreign Language Learning: A Challenge to College Programs. Boston: Thompson Heinle, pp. 2–18. Kiely, R. and Nielson, D. 2003. ‘International Service Learning: The Importance of Partnerships’, Community College Journal, 73, 39–41. Kida, T. 2005. Appropriation du geste par les étrangers: Cas d’étudiants japonais apprenant le français. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Université de Provence, Aix-en-Provence. Kinginger, C. 2002. ‘Defining the Zone of Proximal Development in US Foreign Language Education’, Applied Linguistics, 23, 2, 240– 61. Kinginger, C. 2004a. ‘Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore: Foreign Language Learning as Identity (Re)construction’, in A. Pavlenko and A. Blackledge (eds), op. cit., pp. 219–42. Kinginger, C. 2004b. ‘Communicative Foreign Language Teaching through Telecollaboration’, in O. St. John, K. van Esch and E. Schalkwijk (eds), New Insights into Foreign Language Learning and Teaching. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, pp. 101–33. Kinginger, C. 2006. ‘The Sabrina Syndrome: Intertextuality and Performance of Identity in American students’ Narratives of Learning French’, Paper presented at the joint meeting of the American Association for Applied Linguistics and the Canadian Association for Applied Linguistics, Montréal, June. Kinginger, C. 2008. Language Learning in Study Abroad: Case Studies of Americans in France. Modern Language Journal Monograph, Volume 1. Oxford: Blackwell. Kinginger, C. In press. American Students Abroad: Negotiation of Difference? Language Teaching: Surveys and Studies. Kinginger, C. and Farrell, K. 2004. ‘Assessing Development of Meta-Pragmatic Awareness in Study Abroad’, Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 10, 19–42. Kline, R. 1998. ‘Literacy and Language Learning in a Study Abroad Context’, Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 4, 139–65. Knight, S. M. and Schmidt-Rinehart, B. C. 2002. ‘Enhancing the Homestay: Study Abroad from the Host Family’s Perspective’, Foreign Language Annals, 35, 2, 190–201.

References

233

Kobayashi, Y. 2007. ‘Japanese Women and English Study Abroad’, World Englishes, 26, 1, 62–71. Koike, I. 2003 and 2004. ‘English Language Education Policy in Japan: A Particular Type of Policy-Making Process’, Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 34, 2 and 35, 2, 47–54. Kondo, S. 1997. ‘The Development of Pragmatic Competence by Japanese learners of English: Longitudinal Study on Interlanguage Apologies’, Sophia Linguistica, 41, 265–84. Kramsch, C. 1985. ‘Classroom Interaction and Discourse Options’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 2, 169–83. Kramsch, C. 1987. ‘The Proficiency Movement: Second Language Acquisition Perspectives’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 3, 355–62. Kramsch, C. 1997. ‘The Privilege of the Non-Native Speaker’, PMLA, 112, 3, 359–69. Kramsch, C. 2006a. ‘Preview Article: The Multilingual Subject’, International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16, 1, 97–110. Kramsch, C. 2006b. ‘From Communicative Competence to Symbolic Competence’, Modern Language Journal, 90, 2, 249–52. Krashen, S. 1982. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Kubota, R. 2002. ‘The Impact of Globalization on Language Teaching in Japan’, in D. Block and D. Cameron (eds), op. cit., pp. 13–28. Kunz, E. 2000. Fatale: How French Women Do It. Phoenix, AZ: Bridgewood Press. Labro, P. 1986. L’Etudiant étranger. Paris: Gallimard. Lafford, B. 1995. ‘Getting Into, Through, and Out of a Survival Situation: A Comparison of Communicative Strategies Used by Students Studying Spanish Abroad and “At Home”’, in B. Freed (ed.), op. cit., pp. 97–121. Lafford, B. 2004. ‘The Effect of Context of Learning on the Use of Communication Strategies by Learners of Spanish as a Second Language’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 2, 201–26. Lantolf, J. P. 2007. ‘Re(de)fining Language Proficiency in Light of the Concept of “Languaculture” ’, in H. Byrnes (ed.), Advanced Language Learning: The Contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky. London: Continuum, pp. 72–91. Lantolf, J. P. and Frawley, W. 1988. ‘Proficiency: Understanding the Construct’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 10, 2, 181–95. Lantolf, J. P. and Pavlenko, A. 2001. ‘(S)econd (L)anguage (A)ctivity Theory: Understanding Second Language Learners as People’, in M. P. Breen (ed.), Learner Contributions to Language Learning: New Directions in Research. London: Longman, pp. 141–58. Lantolf, J. P. and Thorne, S. L. 2006. Sociocultural Theory and the Genesis of Second Language Development. London: Oxford University Press. Lapkin, S., Hart, D. and Swain, M. 1995. ‘A Canadian Interprovincial Exchange: Evaluating the Linguistic Impact of a Three-Month Stay in Quebec’, in B. F. Freed (ed.), op. cit., pp. 67–94. Laubscher, M. L. 1994. Encounters with Difference: Student Perceptions of Out of Class Experiences in Education Abroad. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Lave, J. and Wenger, E. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

234

References

Leaver, B. L. and Shekhtman, B. 2002. Developing Professional-Level Language Proficiency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lemée, I. 2002. ‘Acquisition de la Variation Socio-Stylistique dans l’Interlangue d’Apprenants Hibernophones de Français L2: Le Cas de on et nous’, Marges Linguistiques, 4, 56–67. Lennon, P. 1995. ‘Assessing Short-Term Change in Advanced Oral Proficiency: Problems of Reliability and Validity in Four Case Studies’, ITL Review of Applied Linguistics, 109–10, 75–109. Leung, C. 2005. ‘Convivial Communication: Recontextualizing Communicative Competence’, International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15, 2, 119–44. Levelt, W. 1989. Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Levenstein, H. 2004. We’ll Always Have Paris: American Tourists in France Since 1930. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Levin, D. M. 2001. Language Learners’ Sociocultural Interaction in a Study Abroad context. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN. Librande, L. 1998. ‘Journal Reflections: Learning Korean at Home and Abroad’, Carleton Papers in Applied Language Studies, 15, 170–90. Liddicoat, A. J. 2007. ‘Internationalizing Japan: Nihonjiron and the Intercultural in Japanese Language-in-Education Policy’, Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 2, 1, 32–46. Long, M. 1981. ‘Input, Interaction, and Second Language Acquisition’, in H. Winitz (ed.), Native and Foreign Language Acquisition. New York: New York Academy of Sciences, pp. 259–78. Lord, G. 2000. The Combined Effects of Instruction and Immersion on L2 Pronunciation. Unpublished manuscript, University of Florida, Gainesville. Maeno, Y. 1995. ‘Acquisition of Oral Narrative Skills by Foreign Language Learners of Japanese’, in D. MacLaughlin and S. McEwen (eds), Proceedings of the Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD) 19. Boston, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 359–66. Magnan, S. 1986. ‘Assessing Speaking Proficiency in the Undergraduate Curriculum: Data from French’, Foreign Language Annals, 19, 5, 429–38. Magnan, S. and Back, M. 2007a. ‘Requesting Help in French: Developing Pragmatic Features During Study Abroad’, in S. Wilkinson (ed.), Insights from Study Abroad for Language Programs. AAUSC Issues in Language Program Direction. Boston: Thomson Heinle, pp. 22–44. Magnan, S. and Back, M. 2007b. ‘Social Interaction and Linguistic Gain During Study Abroad’, Foreign Language Annals, 40, 1, 43–61. Marriott, H. 1995. ‘The Acquisition of Politeness Patterns by Exchange Students in Japan’ in B. F. Freed (ed.), op. cit., pp. 197–224. Mathews, S. A. 2001. Russian Second Language Acquisition During Study Abroad: Gender Differences in Student Behavior. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Bryn Mawr College, Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania. Matsumura, S. 2001. ‘Learning the Rules for Offering Advice: A Quantitative Approach to Second Language Socialization’, Language Learning, 51, 4, 635–79. Matsumura, S. 2007. ‘Exploring the Aftereffects of Study Abroad on Interlanguage Pragmatic Development’, Intercultural Pragmatics, 4, 2, 167–92. Matthews, A. 1997. Bright College Years: Inside the American Campus Today. New York: Simon and Schuster.

References

235

Mauranen, A. 1994. ‘Two Discourse Worlds: Study Genres in Britain and Finland’, Finlance, 13, 1–40. Mauranen, A. and Markkanen, R. 1994. ‘Students Abroad: Aspects of Exchange Students’ Language’, Finlance, 13, 1–7. McCarthy, M. 1998. Spoken Language and Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McCarthy, M. 2001. Issues in Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McCarthy, M. 2006. Explorations in Applied Linguistics. New York: Cambridge University Press. McMeekin, A. 2006. ‘Negotiation in a Japanese study Abroad Setting’, in M. A. DuFon and E. Churchill (eds), op. cit., pp. 177–202. Meara, P. 1995. ‘Student Attitudes to Learning Modern Languages in the 1980s: Data from Nuffield Modern Languages Inquiry, 1986’, University of Southampton Center for Language Education Occasional Papers, 36. ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED 389 197. MECST, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. 2003. Regarding the Establishment of an Action Plan to Cultivate “Japanese with English Abilities.” Retrieved January 6, 2008 from http://www.mext.go.jp/english/ topics/03072801.htm. Miller, J. 2003. Audible Difference: ESL and Social Identity in Schools. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Miller, L. and Ginsburg, R. 1995. ‘Folklinguistic Theories of Language Learning’, in B. Freed (ed.), op. cit., pp. 293–315. Milleret, M. 1991. ‘Assessing the Gain in Oral Proficiency from Summer Foreign Study’, ADFL Bulletin, 22, 3, 39–43. Milton, J. and Meara, P. 1995. ‘How Periods Abroad Affect Vocabulary Growth in a Foreign Language’, ITL Review of Applied Linguistics, 107–8, 17–34. Moore, D. 2004. La représentation des langues et de leur apprentissage: Références, modèles, données et méthodes. Paris: Didier Collection CREDIF Essais. Mora, J. 2008. ‘Learning Context Effects on the Acquisition of a Second Language Phonology’, in C. Pérez-Vidal, M. Juan-Garau, and A. Bel (eds), A Portrait of the Young in the New Multilingual Spain. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, pp. 241–63. Morford, J. 1997. ‘Social Indexicality in French Pronomial Address’, Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 7, 1, 3–37. Murphy-Lejeune, E. 2002. Student Mobility and Narrative in Europe: The New Strangers. New York: Routledge. Norton, B. 2000. Identity and Language Learning: Gender, Ethnicity, and Educational Change. London: Longman. O’Brien, M. 2003. Longitudinal Development of Second Language German Vowels. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison. O’Brien, M. 2004. ‘Pronunciation Matters’, Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German, 37, 1, 1–9. O’Brien, I., Segalowitz, N., Freed, B. and Collentine, J. 2007. ‘Phonological Memory Predicts Second Language Oral Fluency Gains in Adults’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 4, 557–82.

236

References

Ochs, E. 2002. ‘Becoming a Speaker of Culture’, in C. Kramsch (ed.), Language Acquisition and Language Socialization: Ecological Perspectives. London: Continuum, pp. 99–120. Ochs, E., Smith, R. and Taylor, C. 1989. ‘Detective Stories at Dinnertime: Problem Solving Through Co-Narration’, Cultural Dynamics, 2, 238–57. Ochsner, R. 1979. ‘A Poetics of Second Language Acquisition’, Language Learning, 29, 1, 53–80. Ogden, A. 2007. ‘The View from the Veranda: Understanding Today’s Colonial Students’, Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 15, 2–20. Ogulnick, K. 1998. Onna Rashiku (Like a Woman); The Diary of a Language Learner in Japan. New York: SUNY Press. Ogulnick, K. 1999. ‘Introspection as a Method of Raising Critical Awareness’, Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education and Development, 37, 3, 145–59. Ollivier, D. 2003. Entre Nous: A Woman’s Guide to Finding Her Inner French Girl. New York: St. Martin’s Griffin. Omaggio, A. C. 1986. Teaching Language in Context: Proficiency-Oriented Instruction. Boston: Heinle and Heinle. Opper, S., Teichler, U. and Carlson, J. 1990. Impact of Study Abroad Programmes on Students and Graduates. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 2004. Internationalisation and Trade in Higher Education: Opportunities and Challenges. Retrieved January 9, 2008 from http://www.oecdbookshop.org/ oecd/display.asp?sf1=identifiers&st1=962004061P1. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 2007. Education at a Glance: OECD Indicators. Retrieved July 8, 2008 from http://www.sourceoecd.org/upload/9607051e.pdf. Ortega, L. 2005. ‘Methodology, Epistemology, and Ethics in Instructed SLA Research: An Introduction’, Modern Language Journal, 89, 3, 317–27. Owen, J. 2001. Interlanguage Pragmatics in Russian: A Study of the Effects of Study Abroad and Proficiency Levels on Request Strategies. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Bryn Mawr College, Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania. Oxford, R. 1990. Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle. Paige, R., Cohen, A., Kappler, B., Chi, J. and Lassegard, J. 2002. Maximizing Study Abroad: A Student’s Guide to Strategies for Language and Culture Learning and Use. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition. Paige, R., Cohen, A. and Shively, R. 2004. ‘Assessing the Impact of a StrategiesBased Curriculum on Language and Culture Learning Abroad’, Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 10, 253–76. Papatsiba, V. 2006. ‘Making Higher Education More European Through Student Mobility? Revisiting EU Initiatives in the Context of the Bologna Process’, Comparative Education, 42, 1, 93–111. Patron, M.-C. 2007. Culture and Identity in Study Abroad Contexts: After Australia, French without France. Bern: Peter Lang. Pavlenko, A. 1999. ‘New Approaches to Concepts in Bilingual Memory’, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 2, 3, 209–30. Pavlenko, A. 2001. ‘ “How am I to Become a Woman in an American Vein?”: Transformations of Gender Performance in Second Language Learning’, in

References

237

A. Pavlenko, A. Blackledge, I. Piller and M. Teutsch-Dwyer (eds), Multilingualism, Second Language Learning, and Gender. New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 133–74. Pavlenko, A. 2002a. ‘“We Have Room for But One Language Here”: Language and National Identity in the US at the Turn of the 20th Century’, Multilingua, 21, 2/3, 163–96. Pavlenko, A. 2002b. ‘Poststructuralist Approaches to the Study of Social Factors in Second Language Learning and Use’, in V. Cook (ed.), Portraits of the L2 User. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, pp. 277–302. Pavlenko, A. 2003. ‘Eyewitness Memory in Late Bilinguals: Evidence for Discursive Relativity’, The International Journal of Bilingualism, 7, 3, 257–81. Pavlenko, A. 2007. ‘Autobiographic Narratives as Data in Applied Linguistics’, Applied Linguistics, 28, 2, 163–88. Pavlenko, A. and Blackledge, A. 2004. Negotiation of Identities in Multilingual Contexts. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Pellegrino Aveni, V. 2005. Study Abroad and Second Language Use: Constructing the Self. New York: Cambridge University Press. Pertusa-Seva, I. and Stewart, M. 2000. ‘Virtual Study Abroad 101: Expanding the Horizons of the Spanish Curriculum’, Foreign Language Annals, 33, 4, 438–42. Phipps, A. 2006. Learning the Arts of Linguistic Survival: Languaging, Tourism, Life. Clevedon, UK: Channel View Publications. Pica, T. 1994. ‘Review article: Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes?’, Language Learning, 44, 3, 493–527. Piller, I. and Takahashi, K. 2006. ‘A Passion for English: Desire and the Language Market’, in A. Pavlenko (ed.), Languages and Emotions of Multilingual Speakers. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters, pp. 59–83. Polanyi, L. 1995. ‘Language Learning and Living Abroad: Stories from the Field’, in B. F. Freed (ed.), op. cit., pp. 271–91. Poole, D. 1992. ‘Language Socialization in the Second Language Classroom’, Language Learning, 42, 4, 593–616. President’s Commission on Foreign Language and International Studies. 1979. Strength Through Wisdom: A Critique of US Capability. Washington, DC: GPO. Raschio, R. A. 2001. ‘Integrative Activities for the Study-Abroad Setting’, Hispania, 84, 3, 534–41. Ratner, C. 2006. Cultural Psychology: A Perspective on Psychological Functioning and Social Reform. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Rees, J. and Klapper, J. 2007. ‘Analysing and Evaluating the Linguistic Benefit of Residence Abroad for UK Foreign Language Students’, Assessment and Evaluation in Education, 32, 3, 331–53. Rees, J. and Klapper, J. 2008. ‘Issues in the Quantitative Longitudinal Measurement of Second Language Progress in the Study Abroad Context’, in L. Ortega and H. Byrnes (eds), The Longitudinal Study of Advanced L2 Capacities. New York: Routledge, pp. 89–105. Regan, V. 1995. ‘The Acquisition of Sociolinguistic Native Speech Norms: Effects of a Year Abroad on Second Language Learners of French’, in B. F. Freed (ed.), op. cit., pp. 245–67.

238

References

Regan, V. 1997. ‘Les Apprenants Avancés, la Lexicalisation et l’Acqusition de la Compétence Sociolinguistique: Une Approche Variationniste’, AILE (Acquisition et Interaction en Langue Etrangère), 9, 193–210. Regan, V. 2004. ‘From Speech Community Back to Classroom: What Variation Analysis Can Tell Us about the Role of Context in the Acquisition of French as a Foreign Language’, in J.-M. Dewaele (ed.), Focus on French as a Foreign Language: Multidisciplinary Perspectives. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, pp. 191–209. Rivers, W. P. 1998. ‘Is Being There Enough? The Effects of Homestay Placements on Language Gain During Study Abroad’, Foreign Language Annals, 31, 4, 492–500. Roberts, C., Byram, M., Barro, A., Jordan, S. and Street, B. 2001. Language Learners as Ethnographers. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Rodríguez, S. 2001. The Perception of Requests in Spanish by Instructed Learners of Spanish in the Second- and Foreign-Language Contexts: A Longitudinal Study of Acquisition Patterns. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington. Ryan, J. and Lafford, B. 1992. ‘Acquisition of Lexical Meaning in a Natural Environment: “Ser” and “estar” and the Granada Experience’, Hispania, 75, 3, 714–22. Sasaki, M. 2004. ‘A Multiple-Data Analysis of the 3.5-Year Development of EFL Student Writers’, Language Learning, 54, 3, 525–82. Sasaki, M. 2007. ‘Effects of Study Abroad Experiences on EFL Writers: A MultipleData Analysis’, Modern Language Journal, 91, 4, 602–20. Savignon, S. 1983. Communicative Competence: Theory and Classroom Practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Savignon, S. J. 1985. ‘Evaluation of Communicative Competence: The ACTFL Provisional Proficiency Guidelines’, Modern Language Journal, 69, 2, 129–34. Saville-Troike, M. 2003. The Ethnography of Communication, 3rd Edition. Oxford: Blackwell. Saville-Troike, M. and Kleifgen, J. A. 1986. ‘Scripts for School: Cross-Cultural Communication in Elementary Classrooms’, Text, 6, 2, 207–21. Sax, K. 2001. ‘Stylistically Speaking: Variable Use of nous versus on in American Learners’ French’, Paper presented at the annual meeting of NWAV (New Ways of Analyzing Variation), Toronto, October. Scarcella, R. 1983. ‘Discourse Accent in Second Language Performance’, in S. Gass and L Selinker (eds), Language Transfer in Language Learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, pp. 306–26. Schauer, G. 2006. ‘Pragmatic Awareness in ESL and EFL Contexts: Contrast and Development’, Language Learning, 56, 2, 269–318. Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G. and Sacks, H. 1977. ‘The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation’, Language, 53, 2, 361–82. Schild, K. 1981. ‘Man spricht woanders anders: “Study abroad” und die Barriere lokaler Mundarten’, Die Unterrichtspraxis/ Teaching German, 14, 1, 44–52. Schmidt-Rinehart, B. and Knight, S. 2004. ‘The Homestay Component of Study Abroad: Three Perspectives’, Foreign Language Annals, 37, 2, 254–62. Schneider, A. 2001. ‘A University Plans to Promote Languages by Killing its Languages Department’, Chronicle of Higher Education, March 9.

References

239

Schumann, F. 1980. ‘Diary of a Language Learner: A Further Analysis’, in R. Scarcella and S. Krashen (eds), Research in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House, pp. 51–7. Schumann, J. H. 1976. ‘Social Distance as a Factor in Second Language Acquisition’, Language Learning, 26, 1, 135–43. Schumann, F. and Schumann, J. 1977. ‘Diary of a Language Learner: Introspective Study of SLA’, in H. Brown, C. Yorio and R. Crymes (eds), On TESOL ’77. Washington, DC: TESOL, pp. 241–9. Schwartz, B. 1993. ‘On Explicit and Negative Data Effecting and Affecting Competence and Linguistic Behavior’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 2, 147–63. Scollon, R. and Scollon, S. W. 1995. Intercultural Communication. A Discourse Approach. London: Blackwell. Sedaris, D. 2000. Me Talk Pretty One Day. New York: Little, Brown and Company. Segalowitz, N. and Freed, B. F. 2004. ‘Context, Contact and Cognition in Oral Fluency Acquisition: Learning Spanish in at Home and in Study Abroad Contexts’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 2, 173–99. Shardakova, M. 2005. ‘Intercultural Pragmatics in the Speech of American L2 Learners of Russian: Apologies Offered by Americans in Russian’, Intercultural Pragmatics, 2–4, 423–54. Siegal, M. 1996. ‘The Role of Learner Subjectivity in Second Language Sociolinguistic Competency: Western Women Learning Japanese’, Applied Linguistics, 17, 3, 356–82. Simões, A. 1996. ‘Phonetics in Second Language Acquisition: An Acoustic Study of Fluency in Adult Learners of Spanish’, Hispania, 79, 1, 87–95. Smartt, J. T. and Scudder, R. R. 2004. ‘Immersion Study Abroad in Mexico: Using Repair Behavior to Assess Proficiency Changes’, Foreign Language Annals, 37, 4, 592–601. Stevens, J. 2001. The Acquisition of Spanish Pronunciation in a Study Abroad Context. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA. Straight, S. 1998. ‘Languages Across the Curriculum’, ERIC Digest, ERIC Document Reproduction Number ED 424789. Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Swales, J. 2004. Research Genres: Explorations and Applications. New York: Cambridge University Press. Taguchi, N. 2008. ‘Cognition, Language Contact, and the Development of Pragmatic Comprehension in a Study Abroad Context’, Language Learning, 58, 1, 33–71. Taillefer, G. 2005. ‘Foreign Language Reading and Study Abroad: Cross-cultural and Cross-Linguistic Questions’, Modern Language Journal, 89, 4, 3–18. Talburt, S. and Stewart, M. A. 1999. ‘What’s the Subject of Study Abroad? Race, Gender and “Living Culture”’, Modern Language Journal, 83, 2, 163–75. Tanaka, K. 2007. ‘Japanese Students’ Contact with English Outside the Classroom During Study Abroad’, New Zealand Studies in Applied Linguistics, 13, 1, 36–54. Tanaka, K. and Ellis, R. 2003. ‘Study-Abroad, Language Proficiency, and Learner Beliefs about Language Learning’, JALT Journal, 25, 1, 63–85.

240

References

Tarone, E. 1980. ‘Communication Strategies, Foreigner Talk, and Repair in Interlanguage’, Language Learning, 30, 2, 417–31. Towell, R., Hawkins, R. and Bazergui, N. 1996. ‘The Development of Fluency in Advanced Learners of French’, Applied Linguistics, 17, 1, 84–119. Tschirner, E. 2007. ‘The Development of Oral Proficiency in a Four-Week Intensive Immersion Program’, Die Unterrichtspraxis: Teaching German, 40, 2, 111–17. Tudini, V. 2007. ‘Negotiation and Intercultural Learning in Italian Native Speaker Chat Rooms’, Modern Language Journal, 91, 4, 577–601. Twombly, S. B. 1995. ‘Piropos and Friendship: Gender and Culture Clash in Study Abroad’, Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 1, 1–27. van Ek, J. (ed.). 1975. Systems Development in Adult Language Learning: The Threshold Level in a European Credit System for Modern Language Learning by Adults. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. van Lier, L. 1989. ‘Reeling, Writhing, Drawling, Stretching, and Fainting in Coils: Oral Proficiency Interviews as Conversation’, TESOL Quarterly, 23, 3, 489–508. van Lier, L. 2005. ‘Case study’, in E. Hinkel (ed.), Handbook of Research in Language Teaching and Learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 195–208. van Lier, L. 2008. ‘Ecological-Semiotic Perspectives on Educational Linguistics’, in B. Spolsky and F. M. Hult (eds), The Handbook of Educational Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 596–605. VanPatten, B. 1985a. ‘The ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines: Implications for Grammatical Accuracy in the Classroom’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8, 1, 56–67. VanPatten, B. 1985b. ‘The Acquisition of ser and estar by Adult Learners of Spanish: A Preliminary Investigation of Transitional Stages of Competence’, Hispania, 68, 2, 399–406. Verdaguer, P. 2004. ‘Hollywood’s Frenchness: Representations of the French in American films’, Contemporary French and Francophone Studies, 8, 4, 441–51. Wächter, B. and Wuttig, S. 2006. ‘Student Mobility in European Programs’, in M. Kelo, U. Teichler and B. Wächter (eds), Eurodata: Student Mobility in European Higher Education. Bonn: Lemmens Verlags & Mediengesellschaft, pp. 162–81. Walsh, R. 1994. ‘The Year Abroad – A Linguistic Challenge’, Teanga, 14, 48–57. Warga, M. and Schölmberger, U. 2007. ‘The Acquisition of French Apologetic Behavior in a Study Abroad Context’, Intercultural Pragmatics, 4, 2, 221–51. Watson, R. 1995. The Philosopher’s Demise: Learning to Speak French. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press. Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. New York: Cambridge University Press. Wertsch, J. V. 1990. ‘The Voice of Rationality’, in L. Moll (ed.), Vygotsky and Education: Instructional Implications and Applications of Sociohistorical Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 111–26. Wertsch, J. V. 2002. Voices of Collective Remembering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wertsch, J. V. and Minnick, N. 1990. ‘Negotiating Sense in the Zone of Proximal Development’, in M. Schwebel, C. Maher and N. Fagley (eds), Promoting Cognitive Growth over the Life Span. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 71–87.

References

241

White, L. 1989. Universal Grammar and Second Language Acquisition. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Wilkinson, S. 1998. ‘On the Nature of Immersion During Study Abroad: Some Participants’ Perspectives’, Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 4, 121–38. Wilkinson, S. 2002. ‘The Omnipresent Classroom During Summer Study Abroad: American Students in Conversation with their French Hosts’, Modern Language Journal, 86, 2, 157–73. Wilkinson, S. 2005. ‘Articulating Study Abroad: The Depth Dimension’, in C. M. Barrette and K. Paesani (eds), Language Program Articulation: Developing a Theoretical Foundation. Boston, MA: Thomson Heinle, pp. 44–58. Wolf, A. 2006. Subjectivity in a Second Language: Conveying the Expression of Self. Oxford: Peter Lang. Wood, D. 2007. ‘Mastering the English Formula: Fluency Development of Japanese Learners in a Study Abroad Context’, JALT Journal, 29, 2, 209–30. Wylie, L. and Brière, J.-F. 1995. Les Français, Second Edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Yager, K. 1998. ‘Learning Spanish in Mexico: The Effect of Informal Contact and Student Attitudes on Language Gain’, Hispania, 81, 4, 898–913. Zarate, G. 2003. ‘The Recognition of Intercultural Competences: From Individual Experience to Certification’, in G. Alred, M. Byram and M. Fleming (eds), Intercultural Experience and Education. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, pp. 213–24. Zeiss, E. and Isabelli-García, C. 2005. ‘The Role of Asynchronous ComputerMediated Communication on Enhancing Cultural Awareness’, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18, 3, 151–69.

Name Index Adams, R., 107, 109–10, 112 Agar, M., 93, 151, 181 Allen, H., 42, 52, 59, 60 Anderson, R., 54 Archangeli, M., 221 Austin, J. L., 83 Ayano, M., 24 Back, M., 84, 85, 117, 144–5, 149 Bacon, S., 116, 119–20, 123, 128, 129 Bailey, K., 34–5 Ball, R., 98 Barnwell, D., 42 Barron, A., 84, 86, 92, 94, 95, 100 Bazergui, N., 50, 54, 55, 57, 67, 96 Becker, A. L., 2 Bégaudeau, F., 69–70, 96 Belz, J., 90, 112 Bennett, M., 130 Bernhardt, E., 12 Bialystok, E., 100 Blackledge, A., 183, 199 Block, D., ix, 7–8, 12, 38, 78, 129, 183, 184, 196–7, 199, 203, 204, 216, 218 Bourdieu, P., 165 Bouton, L., 83 Brecht, R. D., 42, 45–6, 48, 62, 63, 66, 116, 121, 123, 129, 130, 141, 151, 185, 196, 213, 218 Brière, J.-F., 127 Brinton, L., 91 Bronfenbrenner, U., 67 Burn, B. B., 196 Butler, Y., 21–2 Byram, M., 71, 214 Byrnes, H., 18 Cameron, D., 218 Cantet, L., 69 Carlson, J. S., 39, 196 Carroll, J., 31–3, 38, 40, 42, 47, 66, 152, 207, 209, 213, 219

Carroll, R., 127, 148 Carson, J. G., 109 Celce-Murcia, C., 70, 72, 83, 90, 101, 107 Chieffo, L., 59, 60, 61, 67 Chi, J., 88 Churchill, E., 117, 124–5, 129, 157, 171, 184, 190–1, 195 Cicourel, A., 46, 204 Cohen, A., 84, 87–8, 110 Coleman, J. A., 4, 7, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 34, 42, 47–8, 66, 213, 219 Collentine, J., 50, 54, 57, 72, 73, 74–5, 76, 81–2, 97, 108, 213 Cook, H., 157, 161, 174–7, 181, 182 Cook, V., 71, 83, 112 Corbin, J., 215 Coveney, A., 96 Cubillos, J., 59, 60, 61, 67 Davidson, D., 42, 45–6, 48, 62, 63, 66, 121, 141, 185, 196, 213, 218 Davie, J., 39 Davies, B., 161, 183–4 DeKeyser, R., 73–4, 82 DeLey, H., 137 Dewaele, J.-M., 94, 103–4, 105, 216 Dewey, D., 50, 52–3, 57, 58, 62, 63–4, 65, 139, 209, 210, 211 Díaz-Campos, M., 80, 82 Dolby, N., 197 Dörnyei, Z., 70, 72, 83, 90, 101, 107 Duff, P. A., 119 DuFon, M., 92, 95–6, 100, 112, 157, 161, 171, 177–81, 207 Duperron, L., 78 Dyson, P., 39 Eckert, P., 159 Edmondson, W. J., 169 Einbeck, K., 118 Ellis, R., 30, 59, 60, 71, 160–1, 182 Engle, J., 118, 221

242

Name Index 243 Engle, L., 118, 221 Evans, C., 29 Fairclough, N., 71 Falk, R., 6, 222 Fan, C., 59, 60, 61, 67 Farrell, K., 94–5 Feinberg, B., 5, 12, 217 Feng, A., 214 Ferguson, C., 160 Firth, A., 38 Frank, V., 133, 138 Fraser, C., 91–2, 100, 115 Frawley, W., 42 Freed, B. F., 5, 30, 42, 43–4, 49, 50, 51–4, 57–8, 64, 67, 74, 139, 210, 211, 213 Gadet, F., 103–4 Gass, S., 30, 71, 115 Gershman, S., 192 Gillette, B., 111 Ginsburg, R. B., 42, 45–6, 48, 62, 63, 66, 116, 121, 140–1, 150, 153, 158, 166, 181, 182, 185, 196, 203, 211, 213, 218, 221 Goffman, E., 97, 162 Golato, A., 90 Gore, J. E., 5, 15, 16, 153 Gough, J., 160 Grieve, A., 91, 92, 100, 112 Guiliano, M., 192 Guntermann, G., 73, 75–6, 82 Halter, F., 139 Harré, R., 161, 183–4 Hart, D., 62, 63 Hashimoto, H., 157, 161, 169, 171, 182 Hassall, T., 92, 99–100, 112 Hatch, E., 160 Hawkins, R., 50, 54–5, 57, 67, 96 Hayden, J., 62, 63, 65 Herron, C., 42, 52, 59, 60 He, A. W., 119 Hoffa, W. W., 15 Hoffman-Hicks, S., 84, 89, 112 Howard, M., 73, 75, 77–8, 82, 102, 103, 105, 111, 209

Huebner, T., 31, 59, 62, 63, 65, 209 Hymes, D., 70, 71 Ife, A., 79–80, 82 Iino, M., 21–2, 101, 157, 161, 171–4, 177, 181, 182 Ingram, M., 221 Isabelli, C. A., 72, 73, 76–7, 82, 110, 111, 209 Isabelli-García, C. L., 117, 142, 144, 148, 150, 184, 195, 196, 201, 211, 221 Iwasaki, N., 42, 62, 63, 103, 106 Jackson, J., 222 Jefferson, G., 167 Juan-Garau, M.–J., 50, 55, 56, 57, 214 Jungheim, N., 101–2 Jurasek, R., 222 Kanach, N., 6, 222 Kaplan, I., 58–9, 61, 146 Kappler, B., 94, 161 Kasper, G., 94, 161 Kern, R., 61, 96 Kida, T., 102 Kiely, R., 221 Kinginger, C., 25, 29, 59, 60, 62, 63, 65, 92, 94–5, 98, 100, 103, 104, 117, 125, 129, 148, 149–50, 151, 157, 184, 192–5, 197–8, 202, 203, 205 Klapper, J., 29, 42, 47, 48, 66, 67, 72, 98, 210, 215, 219 Kleifgen, J. A., 119 Kline, R., 61, 116, 136, 137, 149, 151, 184, 195, 218 Knight, S. M., 116, 118, 130–1, 137–8, 149, 151 Kobayashi, Y., 24 Koike, I., 24 Kondo, S., 84, 86 Kramsch, C., 2, 4, 41, 71, 112, 169, 211 Krashen, S., 78 Kubota, R., 21, 22 Kunz, E., 192

244

Name Index

Labro, P., 1–3 Lafford, B., 29, 73, 76, 82, 92, 97–8, 100, 110, 112, 207 Lamson, H., 222 Lantolf, J. P., 4, 42, 107, 152, 156, 208, 218 Lapkin, S., 62, 63 Lassegard, J., 88 Laubscher, M. L., 139 Lave, J., 138, 159, 160 Lazar, N., 50, 51–2, 57, 64, 74 Leaver, B. L., 42 Lemée, I., 92, 96, 100, 103, 105 Lennon, P., 40 Leung, C., 71, 83, 100, 112 Levelt, W., 54 Levenstein, H., 219 Levin, D. M., 116, 146–7, 149, 151 Librande, L., 63, 114 Liddicoat, A. J., 23 Longhini, A., 109 Long, M., 74, 115 Lord, G., 81–2 Maeno, Y., 92, 97 Magnan, S. S., 42, 43, 84–5, 117, 144–5, 149 Markkanen, R., 119 Marriott, H., 92, 98, 100 Mathews, S. A., 116, 141–2, 150 Matsumura, S., 84, 86, 87, 89, 111, 209 Matthews, A., 16, 127 Mauranen, A., 61, 119 McCarthy, M., 49, 56–7, 58, 82, 100, 214 McConnell-Ginet, S., 159 McMeekin, A., 73, 78–9, 82 Meara, P., 39, 40, 58, 79–80, 82 Milleret, M., 42, 43, 44–5 Miller, J., 125 Miller, L., 116, 140–1, 150, 153, 158, 166, 181, 182, 196, 203, 211, 221 Milton, J., 79, 82 Minnick, N., 119 Moore, D., 192 Mora, J., 81, 214 Morford, J., 93 Murphy-Lejeune, E., 6, 17, 19, 26, 157, 183, 199–201, 202

Nielson, D., 222 Nishida, C., 73, 76, 82 Norton, B., 156, 183, 192 O’Brien, M., 50, 54, 57, 81, 82 Ochs, E., 156, 158, 175 Ochsner, R., 32, 34–5, 38 Ogden, A., 217 Ogulnick, K., 184 Ollivier, D., 192 Omaggio, A. C., 41, 45 O’Maley, P., 222 Opper, S., 39 Ortega, L., 216 Owen, J., 84, 86 Oxford, R., 107 Paige, R., 87, 110 Papatsiba, V., 20–1 Patron, M.–C., 184, 195–6, 201, 218 Pavlenko, A., ix, 4, 13, 123, 139, 142, 156, 183, 192, 196, 215 Pellegrino Aveni, V., 117, 122–3, 129, 135–6, 138, 146, 151 Pérez-Vidal, C., 50, 55, 56, 57, 214 Pertusa-Seva, I., 221 Phipps, A., 12 Pica, T., 78 Piller, I., 24 Planchenault, G., 94 Polanyi, L., 46, 121, 142, 157, 184, 185–6, 195, 214, 218 Poole, D., 122 Raschio, R. A., 132, 221 Ratner, C., 192, 193 Rees, J., 29, 42, 47, 48, 66–7, 72, 98, 210, 215, 219 Regan, V., 103–5 Rivers, W. P., 116, 132–3, 138, 145 Roberts, C., 222 Robinson, J. L., 116, 121, 123, 129, 151 Rodríguez, S., 84, 86 Ryan, J., 73, 76, 82, 207 Sacks, H., 167 Sasaki, M., 62, 64–5, 67, 209 Savignon, S., 42, 70, 107

Name Index 245 Saville-Troike, M., 119, 159 Sax, K., 92, 96, 100 Scarcella, R., 169 Schauer, G., 84, 86 Schegloff, E., 167 Schild, K., 101 Schmidt-Rinehart, B., 116, 118, 130–3, 137–8, 149, 151 Schneider, A., 4 Schölmberger, U., 84, 85 Schumann, F., 31, 32, 35–8, 115, 116, 152, 156, 184, 219 Schumann, J. H., 31, 32, 35–8, 115, 116, 152, 156 Schwartz, B., 76 Scollon, R., 100, 119 Scollon, S. W., 100, 199 Scudder, R. R., 109, 110 Sedaris, D., 154–6, 202 Segalowitz, N., 50, 52–4, 57–8, 139, 210, 211 Selinker, L., 30, 71 Shapira, R., 160 Shardakova, M., 84, 85, 88–90, 112, 210 Shekhtman, B., 42 Shively, R., 84, 87–8, 110 Siegal, M., 157, 161–6, 168–9, 174, 177, 181, 182, 184 Simões, A., 81 Smartt, J. T., 109, 110 Smith, R., 175 So, S., 50, 51–2, 57, 64, 74 Stevens, J., 81 Stewart, M. A., 157, 184, 186, 188–90, 195, 221 Straight, S., 222 Strauss, A., 215 Swain, M., 62, 63 Swales, J., 96

Takahashi, K., 24 Talburt, S., 157, 184, 186, 188–90, 195 Tanaka, K., 59, 60, 146 Tarone, E., 107 Taylor, C., 175 Teichler, U., 39 Thorne, S. L., 107, 208, 218 Thurell, S., 70, 72, 83, 90, 101, 107 Towell, R., 50, 54–5, 57, 67, 96 Tschirner, E., 42, 221 Tudini, V., 221 Twombly, S. B., 157, 184, 186–8, 195, 218

Taguchi, N., 83, 84, 87 Taillefer, G., 61, 96, 119

Zarate, G., 71, 118 Zeiss, E., 221

Useem, J., 196 van Ek, J., 18 van Lier, L., 4, 26, 42, 158, 207, 218 VanPatten, B., 41, 74 Verdaguer, P., 197 Vives Boix, G., 79–80, 82 Wächter, B., 19 Wagner, J., 38 Walsh, R., 73, 74, 81 Warga, M., 84, 85 Watson, R., 192 Wenger, E., 138, 159, 160 Wertsch, J. V., 119, 198, 202 Wilkinson, S., 4, 115, 116, 133–5, 138, 147–8, 149, 157, 161, 166, 167–9, 181, 182 Wolf, A., 96 Wood, D., 50, 55–6, 57 Wuttig, S., 19 Wylie, L., 127 Yachimowicz, D., 196 Yager, K., 39–40

Subject Index Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Fellowship Program, 14 Actional competence, 71, 72, 83, 87, 207, 214 Address forms, 93–96, 120 competence, 93 American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL), 32, 42 Oral Proficiency Guidelines, 41–42 Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI), 33, 41, 42, 43, 44–7, 48, 49–50, 53, 54, 66, 68, 73, 74, 76, 97, 142 Simulated Oral Proficiency Interview (SOPI), 73, 76, 144 American Council on the Teaching of Russian (ACTR), 45, 116, 121, 122, 132, 139, 166 Authentic language use, 94, 132, 141, 159, 174, 182, 214 Bologna Declaration, 20, 127 Cognitive factors, 57 Cognitive process, 107 Cognitive processing abilities, 53–54 Cognitive style, 35 Cohesion, 90–1, 97, 100 Collective remembering, 198, 202, 212 Collocations, 55 Colloquial words, 103–4 Commission on the Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Fellowship Program, 14 Common European Framework of Reference for Language, 18 Communicative competence, 27, 70–2, 111–12, 207, 221 Communicative incompetence, 181, 213

Community of practice, 145, 159 Conceptual metaphors, 166 Confluence, 57 Conversation analysis, 157 based on texts, 136 classroom, 121 fluent, 58 mealtime, 95, 170–71, 174, 177–81, 202 naturally occurring, 167 Conversational competence, 98 Conversational gambits, 97, 108 Conversational interaction, 51, 57, 91, 97, 162 Conversational repertoire, 99 Conversational strategies, 144 Conversational structure, 72, 90–91, 97, 100 Correspondence analysis, 98 Council of Europe, 18 Cross-border education, 7–9, 19 C-test, 42, 47–8, 68, 91 Deixis, 72, 90–1, 93, 96, 100, 103 Dialect, 170, 172, 174, 182 Diary studies, 31, 35–7, 99–100, 109, 116 Discourse competence, 70–2, 90–100, 106, 111 Discourse Completion Task (DCT), 84–6, 88, 90, 92, 94 Domestic immersion programs, 50, 52–3, 57–9, 62–4, 89, 210 Ecological validity, 28, 46, 60, 67, 214, 215, 217 Educational Testing Service (ETS), 33, 41, 45, 59–60, 62 Essay quality, 64 Ethnography, 116–17, 157 of communication, 71 246

Subject Index European Community Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students (ERASMUS), 8, 19–20, 103, 200–1 European Language Proficiency Survey, 47 European Union, 8, 17–21, 199–200 Face interactional, 162, 209 threatening acts, 162–3 Fluency, 30, 31, 49–58, 62, 64, 66, 74, 81, 100, 171, 207, 209, 210, 211, 214 Folk beliefs, 157, 174–7, 181 Folklinguistic theories, 166, 181–2, 203, 221 Foreigner Talk, 160–1, 174, 182, 203, 213 Formulaic expression, 174 Formulaic language, 31, 147, 209 Formulaic sequences, 49, 55–8, 76, 83, 97 Gender address forms, 95 demographics, 20 identity, 28, 150–2, 158, 196, 212 ideology, 1, 138, 141–2, 183, 196, 201–3 in language use, 169–70, 213 limits on language learning, 37, 45–47, 143, 183–96 literacy practices, 137 in research design, 48, 116, 141–2, 145, 157, 183–96 Gesture, 101–2, 106, 147 Globalization, 7, 22, 218 Grammatical competence, 41, 72–9, 82, 209, 221 Grand Tour, 16 Homestay, 27, 28, 78, 115–16, 130–9, 143, 145, 146, 147, 156, 157, 158, 167, 169–83, 202, 212, 215 Host families, 78–9, 108, 116, 130–9, 144, 146, 157, 167–72, 175–8, 188, 190, 197, 199, 202–3, 208, 212, 221

247

Individual differences, 27, 31, 43, 48, 52, 53, 65, 68, 79, 111, 156, 158, 203, 211, 216, 223 Input, 30, 74, 76, 77, 78, 115, 132, 133, 160–1, 208 Institute for International Education, 14–15, 24 Instruction, 30, 63, 64, 76, 77, 81, 83, 109, 116, 118–30, 151, 166–9, 172, 209, 221 Internationalization, 8 Japan, 22 United States, 13 Japanese Proficiency Test, 59, 62–3 Language Contact Profile, 43, 53, 139 Leave-taking, 84, 95, 98–100 Legitimate peripheral participation, 138, 159 Linguistic competence, 70, 72–83, 90, 111, 142 Listening comprehension, 26, 31, 38, 58–61, 128, 207 Literacy, 40, 44, 61, 65–6, 97, 118, 136, 209, 211, 214, 221, 222 practices, 116, 136–7, 184 Migration, 6–11, 17, 25 Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MECST), 23, 24 Mobility capital, 17, 26, 200–1, 212, 214, 216 Motivation, 17, 23, 31, 43–4, 46, 135, 142–4, 151, 156, 192, 211, 212 National Defense Education Act (NDEA), 13, 32–4 National identity, 196–202 Nationality, 183 Negotiation of difference, 203 of meaning, 71, 78–9, 108, 146 Nihonjiron, 23, 175, 177, 181, 204 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 7–12

248

Subject Index

Particularity, 26, 158, 207 Phonology, 71, 72, 80–1 Policy, 3, 4–8, 12, 13, 15–16, 18–19, 21, 24, 26, 28–9, 40, 206, 219–20 Pragmatic competence, 38, 44, 87, 169 President’s Commission on Foreign Language and International Studies, 14 Proficiency, 207, 209, 214 Qualitative approaches, 27, 37–8, 50, 54, 64, 68, 87, 90, 101, 115, 119, 122, 130, 151, 152, 183–4, 195, 208, 215–16 Reading, 26, 31, 38–9, 45, 61–6, 91, 116, 133, 137, 207 Register, 61, 71, 101, 102, 104, 165, 209 simplified, see Foreigner Talk Repair, 51, 53, 91, 97, 109, 167 Rich points, 93, 151 Secondary school, 21, 124, 127, 190 Second language acquisition (SLA), 10, 30, 38, 71, 72, 74, 81–2, 152, 208, 213 ecological approach, 204, 218 interactionist approach, 78, 115, 160 interpretive approach, 34–5 Universal Grammar, 76 Service encounters, 37, 59, 93, 95, 115, 134, 139, 146–8, 154, 193 learning, 5, 148, 212, 221 Sexual harassment, 184, 187, 193, 195, 201, 218 Social networks, 117, 125, 142–4, 148, 149, 150, 190, 201, 205, 206, 211

Sociocultural competence, 71, 72, 93, 101–7 Sociolinguistic competence, 102–7, 157, 161 Speech acts, 46, 71, 72, 83–90, 152, 163, 214, 221 Strategic competence, 71, 72, 107–111 Strategy communication, 86, 107–9, 168 instruction, 87–8 learning, 65, 109–10 Student mobility, 6–7, 9–11, 17, 19–20, 200 Style cognitive, 35 narrative, 97 shifts, 103, 106 speech, 67, 71, 104, 162, 170, 171, 209, 210 Subjective appraisal, 32, 35 Subjective ratings, 39–40 Taste, 157, 177–80, 202, 207, 212 Tense and aspect, 76–7, 82, 111, 142, 144 Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL), 24, 59–60 Threshold Level, 18 Time-on-task, 27, 30, 46, 52–3, 57–8, 115, 139–40, 150–1, 208, 210 Tourism, 6–8, 11–12, 25, 217 Universal Grammar, 74, 76–7, 82, 208 Utilitarianism, 20, 29, 152 Vocabulary, 51, 62, 63, 64, 72, 79–80, 82 Writing, 27, 31, 38, 39, 51, 53, 56, 58, 61–6

Language Learning and Study Abroad: A Critical Reading of Research

Critical Reading in Language Education

English Language Learning Materials: A Critical Review

Appraising Research in Second Language Learning: A Practical Approach to Critical Analysis of Quantitative Research

Language Learners in Study Abroad Contexts (Second Language Acquisition)

Study Abroad and Second Language Use: Constructing the Self

Intercultural Journeys: From Study to Residence Abroad (Language and Globalization)

Study Abroad and Second Language Use: Constructing the Self

Appraising Research in Second Language Learning: A Practical Approach to Critical Analysis of Quantitative Research (Language Learning and Language Teaching, V. 3)

Second Language Learning: Theoretical Foundations (Applied Linguistics and Language Study)

Teaching, learning and research in higher education: a critical approach

Handbook of College Reading and Study Strategy Research, 2nd Edition

Cultural Studies and Language Learning: A Research Report (Multilingual Matters)

Management Theory: A Critical and Reflexive Reading

Cultural Studies and Language Learning: A Research Report

Critical Study Of Work

Critical Thinking and Learning

Living and Studying Abroad: Research and Practice

Synthesizing Research on Language Learning And Teaching (Language Teaching & Language Learning)

A Linguistic Theory of Translation (Language and Language Learning)

Arthur Miller: A Critical Study

Classical Cynicism: A Critical Study

The Study of Language

Speaking, Reading, and Writing in Children With Language Learning Disabilities: New Paradigms in Research and Practice

Disney Learning Phonics and Reading

A Critical Study of Philip Guston

The uses of sport: a critical study

Language and Learning

Language Development and Learning to Read: The Scientific Study of How Language Development Affects Reading Skill (Bradford Books)

The Uses of Sport: A Critical Study

A Critical Study of the Euthalian Apparatus

Language Learning and Study Abroad: A Critical Reading of Research

Critical Reading in Language Education

English Language Learning Materials: A Critical Review

Appraising Research in Second Language Learning: A Practical Approach to Critical Analysis of Quantitative Research

Language Learners in Study Abroad Contexts (Second Language Acquisition)

Study Abroad and Second Language Use: Constructing the Self

Intercultural Journeys: From Study to Residence Abroad (Language and Globalization)

Study Abroad and Second Language Use: Constructing the Self

Appraising Research in Second Language Learning: A Practical Approach to Critical Analysis of Quantitative Research (Language Learning and Language Teaching, V. 3)

Second Language Learning: Theoretical Foundations (Applied Linguistics and Language Study)

Teaching, learning and research in higher education: a critical approach

Handbook of College Reading and Study Strategy Research, 2nd Edition

Cultural Studies and Language Learning: A Research Report (Multilingual Matters)

Management Theory: A Critical and Reflexive Reading

Cultural Studies and Language Learning: A Research Report

Critical Study Of Work

Critical Thinking and Learning

Living and Studying Abroad: Research and Practice

Synthesizing Research on Language Learning And Teaching (Language Teaching & Language Learning)

A Linguistic Theory of Translation (Language and Language Learning)

Arthur Miller: A Critical Study

Classical Cynicism: A Critical Study

The Study of Language

Speaking, Reading, and Writing in Children With Language Learning Disabilities: New Paradigms in Research and Practice

Disney Learning Phonics and Reading

A Critical Study of Philip Guston

The uses of sport: a critical study

Language and Learning

Language Development and Learning to Read: The Scientific Study of How Language Development Affects Reading Skill (Bradford Books)

The Uses of Sport: A Critical Study

A Critical Study of the Euthalian Apparatus

Recommend Documents